4 ms·

This causes some pretty strong mixed feelings for me. On the one hand, foreign workers are already disadvantaged compared with domestic workers and H1-B caps ar

This causes some pretty strong mixed feelings for me. On the one hand, foreign workers are already disadvantaged compared with domestic workers and H1-B caps are absurdly low. I keep failing to see why we are all supposed to open world markets to the flow of every sort of capital and goods except labor, or why someone deserves a job for being born American, rather than Indian (Note that I feel the same way when Americans are disadvantaged elsewhere for similar reasons[1]). On the other hand, a clause requiring that you never say something bad about your employer nor discuss the situation under which you were laid off seems not only abusive, but repugnantly so. In a country that constitutionally enshrines free speech, the ability to sign away for money your right to complain publicly about a person or organization seems particularly dangerous, and the act of asking someone to do so seems truly vile. [1] https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4#.466usnivl https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4#.466usni...

eigenvector 10y ago
> I keep failing to see why we are all supposed to open world markets to the flow of every sort of capital and goods except labor, or why someone deserves a job for being born American, rather than Indian (Note that I feel the same way when Americans are disadvantaged elsewhere for similar reasons[1]). Neither of those conclusions are necessary in order to be against H1B abuse. Abusers of the program distort the labour market artificially and depress salaries by replacing Americans with foreign workers who are tied to one employer and therefore unable to negotiate for a proper salary. The italicized portion is what we should find troubling, not merely that foreigners are moving to America to work. This results in a transfer of wealth from the working population to employers who no longer need to pay prevailing market wages.
- frostmatthew 10y ago
  A lot of this would be solved (or at least greatly improved) if H-1Bs were awarded via auction rather than lottery.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    I'd like to add that full rights for guest workers could possibly solve the problem outright. Let the worker walk out and find a better job the day they land in the airport or cross the border or change status to worker. Make any "bond" illegal and declare the employer may not seek restitution for the worker walking out in search of greener pastures.
    - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
      While this is definitely helpful, it solves a different problem. You're assuming that H1Bs are only awarded to highly skilled workers. Therefore, if they are being "underpaid" they could get other jobs that would pay them more. However, this is not currently true. Currently the problem is that certain companies are exploiting the H1B program to get workers who are "high skilled" but only meeting the minimum requirements[1]. As a result, these "minimum requirement" H1B holders are not being "underpaid" they are appropriately paid for their skill level, while still: 1. Hindering higher skilled workers from attaining H1Bs. 2. Undercutting the current US workers salaries. Meanwhile, giving H1Bs via auction(ideally, based on the employees yearly compensation), ensure that the US only takes the highest skilled workers[2]. Encouraging an import of the world's best. Larger salaries for H1B holders on average, therefore more taxes collected. [1] Because the minimum requirements are actually quite vague and to anyone not in the tech field, its really hard to asses the technical abilities of a potential employee. [2] Utilizing salary as a proxy for skill, based on capitalistic company's abilities to accurately compensate skill.
      - newjersey 10y ago
        I like this idea. However, I must ask what safeguards do we have from preventing this class from turning into the eb5 or indeed should we try to prevent h1b from turning into eb5?
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    H1Bs allocated via a typical auction, would not do much good. Except mean that companies with the most money, could buy them and then under pay their employees. The best approach I've heard is the stack rank based on "minimum yearly income"[1], the top X number of potential employees are awarded H1Bs. At the end of the year, the immigration office checks with the IRS. If the employee was fired/quit or was not paid more than the "minimum yearly income" the sponsoring company is forced to pay the difference in fines. i.e. At the end of the year, that H1B has to have cost the company at least the disclosed "minimum yearly income". [1] "minimum yearly income" is some value less than: base salary + cash bonus + stock awards
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  > The italicized portion is what we should find troubling I do too. But I also realize that, right now, scrapping the H1B program means higher barriers to immigration, rather than replacing it with full work-and-residence rights for qualified foreigners. If the choice is between H1B or open-borders/conditional-green-card (e.g. skills-plus-clean-record based), I'd take option number 2, of course. Right now the national dialog seems to be H1B vs "go back to Mexico! We will build a wall!".
colordrops 10y ago
These Carly Fiorina-style arguments that no one has a special right to a job are ignoring a lot of context. In a world with even handed regulation and no borders, that could make sense. But that is not the world we live in. The current situation is not that trade is completely deregulated and labor is tied up in red tape. What is really happening is that there is a complex surface area of varying degrees of regulation and deregulation that in most cases benefits an elite class at the expense of others. Companies in America take advantage of rights to purchase land, subsidies, government contracts, military protection, tax advantages, tariffs, etc, all funded by American tax payers. Why wouldn't it be fair for Americans to have an advantage in the American market place? I actually agree that in an ideal world nations and borders wouldnt exist. But as long as the majority see benefit in their existence and they are being propped up by the powers that be, why would you kick the legs out from any small advantage you have from being a citizen of one?
- Dwolb 10y ago
  Said in another way, capital is fungible but labor is not. This means capital can flow readily to the lowest cost suppliers and workers but workers cannot flow readily to higher paying employers. This leads to a mismatch where, temporarily, employers can capture higher-skilled workers at lower costs. Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights?
  - dietrichepp 10y ago
    > Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights? This is a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. It's a short amendment, shorter than your comment, so you might as well just read the amendment.
    - Dwolb 10y ago
      Ah thanks for the advice :)
  - nostrademons 10y ago
Clubber 10y ago
The problem is it's one sided. The main issue is US employees are fortunate enough to have protections under the law, protections hard fought by unions, literally. Those protections cost money but are sensible, such as safety regulations, child labor laws, the right to not be discriminated against, minimum wage, no harassment, physical violence, etc. When using Indian labor offshore, or any underdeveloped economy really, those protections are mostly gone because India doesn't protect their employees like the US does, which is also unfortunate. Companies also benefit from the US legal system and infrastructure, including the liability protection from corporations, tax breaks, roads, public utilities, police, etc, all which are paid for by taxpayers. Of course, to be fair, US corporations who benefit mostly from foreign labor should move their corporation to the country of their labor. Of course they don't want to do that, because of corruption, subpar legal system, infrastructure, etc. They want it both ways. Protection and benefits from the US government and cheap labor where the labor doesn't have the same protection. It's not just wages US labor is losing. To compete, US labor has to give up all our labor benefits while still paying for corporate benefits through tax dollars. Taxpayers are also on the hook for people who can't find jobs while corporations do nothing but benefit. It's really another wealth transfer from the bottom and middle, up. Besides it's against the spirit of the law. I'm ok with offshoring if US corporations are OK with losing all their tax breaks. I didn't think so.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Note that this is not really about offshoring. Offshoring falls under the "free movement of every form of capital and goods, except labor" that I mentioned and it is complicated for everyone involved. You get competition from labor without legal protections which can't move to places where they would have such protections, nor easily obtain them at home. We get companies that are pretty much untouchable by our legal systems. On the other hand, you/we get cheaper goods and a lot of people get better jobs than the alternative. Short of encoding better labor rights at the WTO/U.N. level, I don't see a fair long term solution for that one. In the case of foreign workers in the U.S., labor protections and laws apply (except perhaps some employment mobility in some industries), and the employees involved pay taxes into the U.S. (without representation, I might add). So I don't see those as being the same situation, even if the final underlying cause (severe wealth disparity among nations due to historical reasons) is the same.
WalterBright 10y ago
Accepting money in exchange for not disparaging someone is not a violation of free speech rights.
- DrScump 10y ago
  But traditional free speech rights are founded on the principle that truth is an affirmative defense against (for example) libel or slander cases.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Charging someone with libel or slander is fundamentally different than suing for breach of contract. For example, you don't need an anti-disparagement contract with someone to sue for slander, nor is disparagement necessarily slander. Now, Congress could pass a law saying the anti-disparagement contracts are unenforceable. But would we really want that? Suppose you hire a nanny to watch your kids, and then she quits and writes a tell-all book about your private, embarrassing personal life? You can bet that nannies for high-profile people have anti-disparagement contracts, and are paid well as a consequence. Which seems quite reasonable to me.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      It probably won't happen anyway. But I don't think this is a good argument for these non-disparagement contracts.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        You might feel different if you were a celebrity. I know one, and it's sad to see the curtains always drawn on the windows of the house, the paparazzi camped out in front, etc. I could see a nanny being hired and then threatening the celebrity with a tell-all book, or just cashing in on it anyway.
        yuhong 10y ago

eigenvector 10y ago

> I keep failing to see why we are all supposed to open world markets to the flow of every sort of capital and goods except labor, or why someone deserves a job for being born American, rather than Indian (Note that I feel the same way when Americans are disadvantaged elsewhere for similar reasons[1]). Neither of those conclusions are necessary in order to be against H1B abuse. Abusers of the program distort the labour market artificially and depress salaries by replacing Americans with foreign workers who are tied to one employer and therefore unable to negotiate for a proper salary. The italicized portion is what we should find troubling, not merely that foreigners are moving to America to work. This results in a transfer of wealth from the working population to employers who no longer need to pay prevailing market wages.

frostmatthew 10y ago
A lot of this would be solved (or at least greatly improved) if H-1Bs were awarded via auction rather than lottery.
- newjersey 10y ago
  I'd like to add that full rights for guest workers could possibly solve the problem outright. Let the worker walk out and find a better job the day they land in the airport or cross the border or change status to worker. Make any "bond" illegal and declare the employer may not seek restitution for the worker walking out in search of greener pastures.
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    While this is definitely helpful, it solves a different problem. You're assuming that H1Bs are only awarded to highly skilled workers. Therefore, if they are being "underpaid" they could get other jobs that would pay them more. However, this is not currently true. Currently the problem is that certain companies are exploiting the H1B program to get workers who are "high skilled" but only meeting the minimum requirements[1]. As a result, these "minimum requirement" H1B holders are not being "underpaid" they are appropriately paid for their skill level, while still: 1. Hindering higher skilled workers from attaining H1Bs. 2. Undercutting the current US workers salaries. Meanwhile, giving H1Bs via auction(ideally, based on the employees yearly compensation), ensure that the US only takes the highest skilled workers[2]. Encouraging an import of the world's best. Larger salaries for H1B holders on average, therefore more taxes collected. [1] Because the minimum requirements are actually quite vague and to anyone not in the tech field, its really hard to asses the technical abilities of a potential employee. [2] Utilizing salary as a proxy for skill, based on capitalistic company's abilities to accurately compensate skill.
    - newjersey 10y ago
      I like this idea. However, I must ask what safeguards do we have from preventing this class from turning into the eb5 or indeed should we try to prevent h1b from turning into eb5?
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  H1Bs allocated via a typical auction, would not do much good. Except mean that companies with the most money, could buy them and then under pay their employees. The best approach I've heard is the stack rank based on "minimum yearly income"[1], the top X number of potential employees are awarded H1Bs. At the end of the year, the immigration office checks with the IRS. If the employee was fired/quit or was not paid more than the "minimum yearly income" the sponsoring company is forced to pay the difference in fines. i.e. At the end of the year, that H1B has to have cost the company at least the disclosed "minimum yearly income". [1] "minimum yearly income" is some value less than: base salary + cash bonus + stock awards
lazaroclapp 10y ago
> The italicized portion is what we should find troubling I do too. But I also realize that, right now, scrapping the H1B program means higher barriers to immigration, rather than replacing it with full work-and-residence rights for qualified foreigners. If the choice is between H1B or open-borders/conditional-green-card (e.g. skills-plus-clean-record based), I'd take option number 2, of course. Right now the national dialog seems to be H1B vs "go back to Mexico! We will build a wall!".

colordrops 10y ago

These Carly Fiorina-style arguments that no one has a special right to a job are ignoring a lot of context. In a world with even handed regulation and no borders, that could make sense. But that is not the world we live in. The current situation is not that trade is completely deregulated and labor is tied up in red tape. What is really happening is that there is a complex surface area of varying degrees of regulation and deregulation that in most cases benefits an elite class at the expense of others. Companies in America take advantage of rights to purchase land, subsidies, government contracts, military protection, tax advantages, tariffs, etc, all funded by American tax payers. Why wouldn't it be fair for Americans to have an advantage in the American market place? I actually agree that in an ideal world nations and borders wouldnt exist. But as long as the majority see benefit in their existence and they are being propped up by the powers that be, why would you kick the legs out from any small advantage you have from being a citizen of one?

Dwolb 10y ago
Said in another way, capital is fungible but labor is not. This means capital can flow readily to the lowest cost suppliers and workers but workers cannot flow readily to higher paying employers. This leads to a mismatch where, temporarily, employers can capture higher-skilled workers at lower costs. Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights?
- dietrichepp 10y ago
  > Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights? This is a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. It's a short amendment, shorter than your comment, so you might as well just read the amendment.
  - Dwolb 10y ago
    Ah thanks for the advice :)
- nostrademons 10y ago

Clubber 10y ago

The problem is it's one sided. The main issue is US employees are fortunate enough to have protections under the law, protections hard fought by unions, literally. Those protections cost money but are sensible, such as safety regulations, child labor laws, the right to not be discriminated against, minimum wage, no harassment, physical violence, etc. When using Indian labor offshore, or any underdeveloped economy really, those protections are mostly gone because India doesn't protect their employees like the US does, which is also unfortunate. Companies also benefit from the US legal system and infrastructure, including the liability protection from corporations, tax breaks, roads, public utilities, police, etc, all which are paid for by taxpayers. Of course, to be fair, US corporations who benefit mostly from foreign labor should move their corporation to the country of their labor. Of course they don't want to do that, because of corruption, subpar legal system, infrastructure, etc. They want it both ways. Protection and benefits from the US government and cheap labor where the labor doesn't have the same protection. It's not just wages US labor is losing. To compete, US labor has to give up all our labor benefits while still paying for corporate benefits through tax dollars. Taxpayers are also on the hook for people who can't find jobs while corporations do nothing but benefit. It's really another wealth transfer from the bottom and middle, up. Besides it's against the spirit of the law. I'm ok with offshoring if US corporations are OK with losing all their tax breaks. I didn't think so.

lazaroclapp 10y ago
Note that this is not really about offshoring. Offshoring falls under the "free movement of every form of capital and goods, except labor" that I mentioned and it is complicated for everyone involved. You get competition from labor without legal protections which can't move to places where they would have such protections, nor easily obtain them at home. We get companies that are pretty much untouchable by our legal systems. On the other hand, you/we get cheaper goods and a lot of people get better jobs than the alternative. Short of encoding better labor rights at the WTO/U.N. level, I don't see a fair long term solution for that one. In the case of foreign workers in the U.S., labor protections and laws apply (except perhaps some employment mobility in some industries), and the employees involved pay taxes into the U.S. (without representation, I might add). So I don't see those as being the same situation, even if the final underlying cause (severe wealth disparity among nations due to historical reasons) is the same.

WalterBright 10y ago

Accepting money in exchange for not disparaging someone is not a violation of free speech rights.

DrScump 10y ago
But traditional free speech rights are founded on the principle that truth is an affirmative defense against (for example) libel or slander cases.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Charging someone with libel or slander is fundamentally different than suing for breach of contract. For example, you don't need an anti-disparagement contract with someone to sue for slander, nor is disparagement necessarily slander. Now, Congress could pass a law saying the anti-disparagement contracts are unenforceable. But would we really want that? Suppose you hire a nanny to watch your kids, and then she quits and writes a tell-all book about your private, embarrassing personal life? You can bet that nannies for high-profile people have anti-disparagement contracts, and are paid well as a consequence. Which seems quite reasonable to me.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    It probably won't happen anyway. But I don't think this is a good argument for these non-disparagement contracts.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      You might feel different if you were a celebrity. I know one, and it's sad to see the curtains always drawn on the windows of the house, the paparazzi camped out in front, etc. I could see a nanny being hired and then threatening the celebrity with a tell-all book, or just cashing in on it anyway.
      - yuhong 10y ago