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

Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 188 posts

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#91

Post by diogenescynic »

makecheck wrote: post #77
diogenescynic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the real fix is to make the H-1B 'lottery' into an auction. Instead of accepting 65,000 H-1Bs at random--accept the 65,000 H-1Bs with the highest wages. That way we are getting the immigrants with the highest valued skills and stopping companies like Cognizant and Infosys that game the immigration system by applying for the cheapest H-1Bs possible.

As someone who went through the process, I can tell you that the mere existence of a maximum annual number was insulting. If I get a job, and my company NEEDS me, and I'm GOOD at what I'm doing, I should get IN; period. There should be no crap involved. How the hell is it good for a company to be told that it can't grow because it happened to petition the 65,001st person out of 65,000 that year? How the hell is it go…

>Limits of any kind make no sense at all.

They are trying to protect US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting wages cut) due to a sudden availability of cheap labor. A government is rightfully concerned with making sure its own citizens are gainfully employed. Citizens vote, foreigners don't. Every person within those borders who 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 someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative.

Look at the biggest H-1B recipients: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx It's all low quality outsourcing shops like Infosys and Cognizant.

These laws/protections are intended to prevent a race to the bottom. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#92

Post by rayiner »

chimeracoder wrote: post #85
rayiner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty ignorant article. The limiting factor for immigration is how quickly you can Americanize immigrants, not land area. As for why it's imperative to Americanize immigrants. Look at how much trouble the U.S. has had cultivating democracy in places like Iraq. Most people acknowledge that the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy. Do you think they would be any more ready for democracy if you moved them e…

> Most people acknowledge that the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy. This is a really contentious statement that you just drop in both as fact and as the basis of your entire argument. No, I would not say that 'the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy' is a true statement. I also wouldn't say that what 'most people [in the US]' think about the Iraqi people's readiness for democracy [in Iraq] is really relev…

It's an idea that was invoked by the American left to explain Bush's failure in Iraq, and eventually conceded by key figures on the right as well: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfeld-admits-that-e.... So I'm not sure it's all that controversial.

And we're not talking about whether individual Iraqis in Minnesota are ready for democracy. We are talking about the link posted earlier in the thread, which suggested that the optimal number of immigrants in the U.S. would be two billion. That's not encouraging immigration of selected individuals, it's endorsing wholesale migration of huge populations.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#93

Post by DINKDINK »

rayiner wrote: post #12
DINKDINK wrote: post #3

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?

It's justified in avoiding free rider effects. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.

Thanks for replying with some well-thought-out arguments.

Why are free rider effects acceptable when someone moves from New York to California but not when it's India to California?

There are two, distinct forces at play here. Free-rider effects and cost subsidization.

The non-local worker would start paying taxes into that system? If a corporation is taxed on it's profits, wouldn't they start paying more into that social community.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#94

Post by rayiner »

davidw wrote: post #87
rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about privileges. I'm talking about getting immigrants to buy into the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm talking about integrating immigrants into American society as neighbors so they're not living in their own neighborhoods where they can insulate themselves from the prevailing culture. There is a limit on how quickly you can do this.

> the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that codifying exactly what those are and if someone is going to be able to accept them in X months/years is not going to be an easy task.

Just because delineating something isn't easy doesn't mean the line has no distinction. Here's an example. I'm an immigrant from the subcontinent. Even among educated people there, coming out as gay can be downright dangerous.[1] I'll go out on a limb and say that we should not allow people to immigrate here any more quickly than we can expect to disabuse them of these sorts of beliefs.

[1] I'm cognizant of the fact that it can be dangerous in some Americam communities too. Alas, we're stuck with that. But there is no need to make the task of progress and civilization harder than it already is.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#95

Post by Madmallard »

makecheck wrote: post #77
diogenescynic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the real fix is to make the H-1B 'lottery' into an auction. Instead of accepting 65,000 H-1Bs at random--accept the 65,000 H-1Bs with the highest wages. That way we are getting the immigrants with the highest valued skills and stopping companies like Cognizant and Infosys that game the immigration system by applying for the cheapest H-1Bs possible.

As someone who went through the process, I can tell you that the mere existence of a maximum annual number was insulting. If I get a job, and my company NEEDS me, and I'm GOOD at what I'm doing, I should get IN; period. There should be no crap involved. How the hell is it good for a company to be told that it can't grow because it happened to petition the 65,001st person out of 65,000 that year? How the hell is it go…

I'm against foreign employees in all cases except when there is no available qualified individuals in the country of employment. It's ridiculous to screw over your own people for foreign help at a cheaper rate.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#96

Post by bobby_9x »

diogenescynic wrote: post #13
DINKDINK wrote: post #3

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…

"All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top."

It's funny how much this parallels file sharing and the music industry (and even open source) over the past 15 years: the sharing of free music, open source, and even the app store (how can you possibly make a living when you charge 99 cents for an app?) drove down the cost of both software and music to peanuts.

It's pretty clear artificial government controls haven't worked here (IE: copyright laws) and all industries involved have had to learn how to work around it to survive.

Globalization is here to stay and the thing we all love, technology, has made it easier and easier to replace us with overseas workers.

You can try to restrict the companies through law, but they will just end up moving out of the country (and more jobs will go along with them) to compete at a global level. There are plenty of countries that would love the tax dollars in exchange for lax hiring practices.

"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?"

it's not really 'gaming' anything. It's using technology to find the best applicant (be it experience, cost, or both). Business owner have learned that just getting cheap labor barely works, but it seems like companies like Facebook are getting not only cheaper labor, but employees that are educated and can compete with their American counterpart.

"Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent?"

Is adblock technology considered 'fraudulent' or 'abuse'? People using it are actively choosing to deprive a website of money, which will result in job loss.

Site owners have to learn how to still make money despite this new technology and so will you if you want to continue working and compete with overseas workers.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#97

Post by techsupporter »

DINKDINK wrote: post #72
diogenescynic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier? Actual barrier to a job: knowing how to deliver that type of service. Artificial barrier: Something arbitrary synthesized by a party not involved in an A B transaction. Such as, having your papers in order so someone doesn't throw you in jail. >All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top. Specious argument. What about…

> Does allowing a company from California hire someone from New York 'drive down wages hurt everyone except the top 1%"?

Fundamental difference: I, as a U.S. citizen, have the legal right to move to California (or New York, or any of the other 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and so on) and work there. I do not have that legal right in relation to India. Until we have achieved "free trade" for the movement of people participating in an economy--like the European Union does internally--I do not have any objection to my country of citizenship trying to see that I am employed over non-citizens.

> To me, H1 visas appear to be a sophomoric tantrum of the US transitioning to a global economy.

Absolutely; I won't dispute that. On the other hand, why doesn't India have a program for U.S. nationals to easily move to India and take up employment? Or China? Or Brazil? It's easier to go to the United Kingdom for work than so-called "developing markets."

> Doesn't buying foreign manufactured goods 'drive down wages'?

It can and sometimes does.

> Do you not buy foreign mfg goods?

Where possible, I do not. Most of my clothes are made in the United States as is my television and my computer. My mobile phone was made in the U.S. (Motorola-manufactured in Fort Worth, Texas) but now that's not an option because Motorola shuttered that plant.

> Why not force all companies selling goods in the US to have those products exclusively made in the USA?

I realize this is a rhetorical question but I'll answer it straight anyway: I wouldn't object but that does rather bring about more centralized planning of the economy which is something to which a lot of people would object.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#98

Post by Spooky23 »

makecheck wrote: post #77
diogenescynic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the real fix is to make the H-1B 'lottery' into an auction. Instead of accepting 65,000 H-1Bs at random--accept the 65,000 H-1Bs with the highest wages. That way we are getting the immigrants with the highest valued skills and stopping companies like Cognizant and Infosys that game the immigration system by applying for the cheapest H-1Bs possible.

As someone who went through the process, I can tell you that the mere existence of a maximum annual number was insulting. If I get a job, and my company NEEDS me, and I'm GOOD at what I'm doing, I should get IN; period. There should be no crap involved. How the hell is it good for a company to be told that it can't grow because it happened to petition the 65,001st person out of 65,000 that year? How the hell is it go…

Nobody says the company can't grow; just that they need to hire folks legally able to work in the United States.

Ask an Indian entrepreneur how easy it is to hire an US national with origins in Pakistan.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#99

Post by ergothus »

davidw wrote: post #6

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.

This.

My first experience with H1-B workers was working with contractors at a state agency (in Virginia). They were nice, but not highly skilled overall, and terrified of losing the job as they didn't have any guarantee of getting another U.S. job. This, in turn, made work life worse for everyone, as they'd never complain about anything on the job, even when it was egregious and not just software devs being whiny.

My second experience with H1-B workers was when I moved to Seattle. My colleagues were often H1-B, and were vastly skilled (still nice). Good workers (generalizing, of course), but perfectly willing to complain if the workplace or work was subpar, because they knew they could land another job in the U.S. more easily than our employer could replace any of us.

That said, the paperwork process was amazingly bad, and many of them got stuck in jobs (even avoiding promotions) because they had started the citizenship process, and for at least one phase changing your job starts the process over. Ugh.

The difference between the two, and the impacts it had on the workplaces were stark. My leaving the first job was in the middle of most of their non-H1-B talent leaving (you could call that a self-correction, but that just left those that stayed worse off). My second experience left me rethinking everything I thought I learned from the first experience.

Re: Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers with Immigrants

#100

Post by davidw »

rayiner wrote: post #94
davidw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that codifying exactly what those are and if someone is going to be able to accept them in X months/years is not going to be an easy task.

Just because delineating something isn't easy doesn't mean the line has no distinction. Here's an example. I'm an immigrant from the subcontinent. Even among educated people there, coming out as gay can be downright dangerous.[1] I'll go out on a limb and say that we should not allow people to immigrate here any more quickly than we can expect to disabuse them of these sorts of beliefs. [1] I'm cognizant of the fact…

I see your point, but realistically, you have to put something down into laws, and I have no idea how you would do that. There are plenty of people in the US who loathe gay people and would deny them a variety of rights. Look at what this guy has to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_d...

Perhaps the problem is that he is the son of an immigrant?

Historically, "people not like us" has been used for far more bad than it has for good.

Post reply on HN