4 ms·

Sorry, where? I'm not seeing it.

jasode 10y ago
>most of the people writing about the problems with H-1B visas can't distinguish My response assumes you're saying the journalist of the NYT piece is among "most of the people" not able to make a distinction between the 2 categories you laid out. category 1: >between companies that hire the best they can get (and paying competitive salaries), NYT article: "Proponents of the H-1B system argue that it is an important vehicle to attract top talent to America. After coming to the United States, these visa holders may apply their skills to start new companies or create new, innovative products" category 2: >and outsourcing companies that file a ton of applications (and pay their employees much less). NYT article: "The H-1B program’s critics say the system provides a way for American companies to turn over technology departments to outsourcing companies. These are gaming the system to snap up the visas so they can replace American workers with less expensive, temporary staff members." It seems the NYT journalist has correctly distinguished both categories. (There are more paragraphs in that article that add more details about both categories but I only copypasted 1 example of each.)
- pbh101 10y ago
  (I didn't read the article yet, but): There is a difference between proponents and critics describing the same activity in different terms and noting that different companies treat the system differently and that it is roughly bimodal: "Google's" use and "Infosys'" abuse. I interpreted the two quotes you pulled as the former.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >There is a difference between proponents and critics describing the same activity The 2 quotes I pulled for 2 different categories are not describing the same activity: "top talent to America" != "less expensive, temporary staff members" The "top talent innovative products" is intended to describe Google or Tesla hiring a rare PhD scientist from Germany to work on deep machine learning or automated driving algorithms. The "less expensive, temp staff" is meant to describe loophole abuses like Infosys.
  - strgrd 10y ago
    > (I didn't read the article yet, but) reddit.com is that way --->
- projectramo 10y ago
  I have to agree with @ericseppanen here. It is true that the NYT article mentions the proponents and the critics, but they conflate the companies themselves. In other words, it sounds like the proponents and critics are talking about the same phenomenon. Farther along it becomes even clearer when they say suppressing wages is good for the economy but at what cost. "In other words, it’s true that cheaper labor helps employers increase profits and grow, and having more skilled workers in the United States contributes to economic innovation. But at the same time, individual American employees do face more salary pressure from newcomers who will work for less. And in some cases, they risk losing their jobs entirely, especially older employees who earn higher salaries." @ericseppanen's point is that the two groups are not the same. (A lot of the other critics in the HN comment section also seem to argue that the innovative tech companies are doing the same thing as the outsourcers.)
  - jasode 10y ago
    >@ericseppanen's point is that the two groups are not the same. The NYT journalists are aware of that. The commenter ericseppanen with his incorrect interpretation of the text has done a disservice to the HN readers trusting it as accurate and upvoting his comment to the top. One of writer's profiles is of Mr. Jeff Tan and how he's harmed by HCL Technologies which is an Indian tech firm (similar to bodyshops abusing H1B like Infosys.) The critics' commentary about H1B is talking about this bucket of people. The other profile is talking about "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found" and the examples of that in the article include Microsoft and Google. The proponents commentary about H1B is talking about this bucket. The authors of the article have interwoven both groups together throughout the narrative which may be confusing for some readers -- but that doesn't mean that the writers are so clueless that they completely don't understand the distinction between the two. They clearly do. Interweaving the text for stylistic purposes does not mean they have mistakenly conflated the 2 groups. To summarize the 2 different groups being profiled: "HCL Technologies" example != "Google/Microsoft" example "HCL staff in India replacing Mr. Tan at UCSF" != "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found" >the proponents and the critics, but they conflate the companies themselves. In other words, it sounds like the proponents and critics are talking about the same phenomenon. No, not the same phenomenon: critics("outsourcing companies with less expensive, temporary staff members") != proponents("top talent to create new innovative products")
jasonlotito 10y ago
Not the OP, but it was brought up several times, though it wasn't the focus of the article. I'd quote each area, but I'm on mobile, and considering the number of different areas I'd have to quote, it would be annoying. Suffice it to say, it's in there and your criticism is unwarranted.

>most of the people writing about the problems with H-1B visas can't distinguish My response assumes you're saying the journalist of the NYT piece is among "most of the people" not able to make a distinction between the 2 categories you laid out. category 1: >between companies that hire the best they can get (and paying competitive salaries), NYT article: "Proponents of the H-1B system argue that it is an important vehicle to attract top talent to America. After coming to the United States, these visa holders may apply their skills to start new companies or create new, innovative products" category 2: >and outsourcing companies that file a ton of applications (and pay their employees much less). NYT article: "The H-1B program’s critics say the system provides a way for American companies to turn over technology departments to outsourcing companies. These are gaming the system to snap up the visas so they can replace American workers with less expensive, temporary staff members." It seems the NYT journalist has correctly distinguished both categories. (There are more paragraphs in that article that add more details about both categories but I only copypasted 1 example of each.)

pbh101 10y ago
(I didn't read the article yet, but): There is a difference between proponents and critics describing the same activity in different terms and noting that different companies treat the system differently and that it is roughly bimodal: "Google's" use and "Infosys'" abuse. I interpreted the two quotes you pulled as the former.
- jasode 10y ago
  >There is a difference between proponents and critics describing the same activity The 2 quotes I pulled for 2 different categories are not describing the same activity: "top talent to America" != "less expensive, temporary staff members" The "top talent innovative products" is intended to describe Google or Tesla hiring a rare PhD scientist from Germany to work on deep machine learning or automated driving algorithms. The "less expensive, temp staff" is meant to describe loophole abuses like Infosys.
- strgrd 10y ago
  > (I didn't read the article yet, but) reddit.com is that way --->
projectramo 10y ago
I have to agree with @ericseppanen here. It is true that the NYT article mentions the proponents and the critics, but they conflate the companies themselves. In other words, it sounds like the proponents and critics are talking about the same phenomenon. Farther along it becomes even clearer when they say suppressing wages is good for the economy but at what cost. "In other words, it’s true that cheaper labor helps employers increase profits and grow, and having more skilled workers in the United States contributes to economic innovation. But at the same time, individual American employees do face more salary pressure from newcomers who will work for less. And in some cases, they risk losing their jobs entirely, especially older employees who earn higher salaries." @ericseppanen's point is that the two groups are not the same. (A lot of the other critics in the HN comment section also seem to argue that the innovative tech companies are doing the same thing as the outsourcers.)
- jasode 10y ago
  >@ericseppanen's point is that the two groups are not the same. The NYT journalists are aware of that. The commenter ericseppanen with his incorrect interpretation of the text has done a disservice to the HN readers trusting it as accurate and upvoting his comment to the top. One of writer's profiles is of Mr. Jeff Tan and how he's harmed by HCL Technologies which is an Indian tech firm (similar to bodyshops abusing H1B like Infosys.) The critics' commentary about H1B is talking about this bucket of people. The other profile is talking about "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found" and the examples of that in the article include Microsoft and Google. The proponents commentary about H1B is talking about this bucket. The authors of the article have interwoven both groups together throughout the narrative which may be confusing for some readers -- but that doesn't mean that the writers are so clueless that they completely don't understand the distinction between the two. They clearly do. Interweaving the text for stylistic purposes does not mean they have mistakenly conflated the 2 groups. To summarize the 2 different groups being profiled: "HCL Technologies" example != "Google/Microsoft" example "HCL staff in India replacing Mr. Tan at UCSF" != "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found" >the proponents and the critics, but they conflate the companies themselves. In other words, it sounds like the proponents and critics are talking about the same phenomenon. No, not the same phenomenon: critics("outsourcing companies with less expensive, temporary staff members") != proponents("top talent to create new innovative products")

jasonlotito 10y ago

Not the OP, but it was brought up several times, though it wasn't the focus of the article. I'd quote each area, but I'm on mobile, and considering the number of different areas I'd have to quote, it would be annoying. Suffice it to say, it's in there and your criticism is unwarranted.