4 ms·

Are they more competent than you? If they are not, you have little to worry about. If they are, they deserve your job.

hvs 11y ago
They don't have to be more competent if they are cheaper. Assuming that companies always hire the "best" for the job is naive.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  That they don't hire the best individual doesn't mean they don't hire the best team. Sometimes the cheap inexperienced developer is the best investment and you are not. In that situation the cheap inexperienced guy deserves the job and you don't. If the company makes a mistake, that is, they think they need a cheap inexperienced guy when in fact they need a 100% American-born-and-raised engineer, that company will be outcompeted by the ones who better know what they need.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - hvs 11y ago
    Yes, if people were reducible to a specific set of data points and the world worked on perfect knowledge and optimally efficiently, that would be true.
ones_and_zeros 11y ago
> Are they more competent than you? no.[0] It's purely a money thing. I don't fault our industry, I do fault our government for bending over backward for them. Besides, I'd rather our industry and government focus on filling those classrooms with Americans and hiring Americans first. But it's a self fulfilling prophecy and I just want to start a conversation because I think that this "career" may not be the best if you are at all capable. [0] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-brightest-immigration-policy/ http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...
- duaneb 11y ago
  Agreed. The H1B push seems to be solving a short term problem while leaving our domestic educational problems unaddressed.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    America already has many of the best Universities in the world. From looking at international rankings it looks like the domestic educational problems are more in the middle and high-school level. The Universities are doing great.
    - elevenfist 11y ago
      Professors across the country (three West coast, two east coast, one sw) have told me that undergrad is going to shit actually, but grad school is still ok for now.
      - saint_fiasco 11y ago
        Shitty high-school means unprepared undergrad students, which means comparatively better foreign students.
        elevenfist 11y ago
        More honest professors admit that it's universities that are really dropping the ball.
        saint_fiasco 11y ago
        Do they blame the professors or the administration? If it's the professors all hope is lost, since future professors will be taught by the people who are currently dropping the ball.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      And yet, more and more of the students at the top schools are international. The non-top schools are failing to provide students with competitive schools, but are still driving students into debt. We may have quality teaching, but we are not educating ourselves.
HillaryBriss 11y ago
It's an interesting viewpoint, and consistent with a pure free market theory of labor I guess. But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to labor. The government does constrain companies in other domains. Companies are subjected to pollution laws, tax laws, building codes/regulations/approvals, higher utility rates, incorporation fees, and industry specific rules (look at pharmaceutical companies and health insurers). But, if the government requires companies to commit to training and giving hiring preference to the existing local employee base over people from outside the country (people who can't and don't vote in US elections) -- is that indefensible?
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  I'm sure it's defensible. In a free country you can defend anything you want. But it certainly seems unfair because it makes a feedback loop that keeps people who are in most need of jobs from getting those jobs, even in the hypothetical case where they are more cheap, more competent, or at least less incompetent than they are cheap.
  - HillaryBriss 11y ago
    Then it looks like the components of proper job allocation are competency and need, subject to whatever regulations (if any) a democratically elected government imposes. It's not hard to imagine situations where someone who is the most competent person for a job would not get the job because someone who needs the job more should get it. And, come to think of it, the government would probably be involved in the definition of "need" too. So that's a new regulation I guess. Elected lawmakers would be subjected to the will of the voters on that issue too.
falsestprophet 11y ago
Does my landscaper deserve his job when I'd rather hire a peasant from the Congo to do the job for a handful of rice?
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  If the Congolese peasant can do the job about as well as the landscaper it would be almost evil not to hire him. If he is really willing to receive a handful of rice as payment he may be in a position where he will die if you don't hire him! Of course if your landscaper is better at the job you shouldn't feel obligated to hire the Congolese person just so he doesn't starve.

hvs 11y ago

They don't have to be more competent if they are cheaper. Assuming that companies always hire the "best" for the job is naive.

saint_fiasco 11y ago
That they don't hire the best individual doesn't mean they don't hire the best team. Sometimes the cheap inexperienced developer is the best investment and you are not. In that situation the cheap inexperienced guy deserves the job and you don't. If the company makes a mistake, that is, they think they need a cheap inexperienced guy when in fact they need a 100% American-born-and-raised engineer, that company will be outcompeted by the ones who better know what they need.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hvs 11y ago
  Yes, if people were reducible to a specific set of data points and the world worked on perfect knowledge and optimally efficiently, that would be true.

ones_and_zeros 11y ago

> Are they more competent than you? no.[0] It's purely a money thing. I don't fault our industry, I do fault our government for bending over backward for them. Besides, I'd rather our industry and government focus on filling those classrooms with Americans and hiring Americans first. But it's a self fulfilling prophecy and I just want to start a conversation because I think that this "career" may not be the best if you are at all capable. [0] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-brightest-immigration-policy/ http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...

duaneb 11y ago
Agreed. The H1B push seems to be solving a short term problem while leaving our domestic educational problems unaddressed.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  America already has many of the best Universities in the world. From looking at international rankings it looks like the domestic educational problems are more in the middle and high-school level. The Universities are doing great.
  - elevenfist 11y ago
    Professors across the country (three West coast, two east coast, one sw) have told me that undergrad is going to shit actually, but grad school is still ok for now.
    - saint_fiasco 11y ago
      Shitty high-school means unprepared undergrad students, which means comparatively better foreign students.
      - elevenfist 11y ago
        More honest professors admit that it's universities that are really dropping the ball.
        saint_fiasco 11y ago
        Do they blame the professors or the administration? If it's the professors all hope is lost, since future professors will be taught by the people who are currently dropping the ball.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    And yet, more and more of the students at the top schools are international. The non-top schools are failing to provide students with competitive schools, but are still driving students into debt. We may have quality teaching, but we are not educating ourselves.

HillaryBriss 11y ago

It's an interesting viewpoint, and consistent with a pure free market theory of labor I guess. But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to labor. The government does constrain companies in other domains. Companies are subjected to pollution laws, tax laws, building codes/regulations/approvals, higher utility rates, incorporation fees, and industry specific rules (look at pharmaceutical companies and health insurers). But, if the government requires companies to commit to training and giving hiring preference to the existing local employee base over people from outside the country (people who can't and don't vote in US elections) -- is that indefensible?

saint_fiasco 11y ago
I'm sure it's defensible. In a free country you can defend anything you want. But it certainly seems unfair because it makes a feedback loop that keeps people who are in most need of jobs from getting those jobs, even in the hypothetical case where they are more cheap, more competent, or at least less incompetent than they are cheap.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago
  Then it looks like the components of proper job allocation are competency and need, subject to whatever regulations (if any) a democratically elected government imposes. It's not hard to imagine situations where someone who is the most competent person for a job would not get the job because someone who needs the job more should get it. And, come to think of it, the government would probably be involved in the definition of "need" too. So that's a new regulation I guess. Elected lawmakers would be subjected to the will of the voters on that issue too.

falsestprophet 11y ago

Does my landscaper deserve his job when I'd rather hire a peasant from the Congo to do the job for a handful of rice?

saint_fiasco 11y ago
If the Congolese peasant can do the job about as well as the landscaper it would be almost evil not to hire him. If he is really willing to receive a handful of rice as payment he may be in a position where he will die if you don't hire him! Of course if your landscaper is better at the job you shouldn't feel obligated to hire the Congolese person just so he doesn't starve.