5 ms·

"Given that the unemployment rate for college graduates sits at 2.5%, it is fair to say that most native workers displaced by H-1Bs land on their feet." That's

by molyss 9y ago

"Given that the unemployment rate for college graduates sits at 2.5%, it is fair to say that most native workers displaced by H-1Bs land on their feet." That's completely ignoring the fact that if you have cheaper workers, you end up being underpaid and/or doing a job you'd rather not be doing. Unemployment rate alone don't tell the whole story, and failing to acknowledge that sounds like poor/partial journalism to me

exelius 9y ago
The point is that these Indian outsourcing firms would hire a white face as a sales person and use them to sell the exact same people on L1 visas (which are temporary work visas; but easy to get) at foreign rates and ship most of the work offshore. It would cost a little more for the outsourcing firms, sure, but it would be a net drain on the US economy (especially since it would keep real job creating entrepreneurial talent from coming to the US).
- estebank 9y ago
  > which are temporary work visas; but easy to get I wouldn't say that the L1 visas are easier to get. The only material differences I've noticed between L1 and H1B visas are * the first is not lottery based, * you must have worked for the company in another country for at least a year (time spent in the US while working for the company doesn't count), * that an L2 holding spouse can have an Employment Authorization Document pretty quickly (instead of H2B visa holders, who can only apply for an EAD fairly late in the process after being in the country for years), * L1 visa holders cannot change jobs, while H1B visa holders can (as difficult as that process can be).
  - seldo 9y ago
    L1 visas are easier for the company to get, because there is no cap on the number issued. The employee on an L1 is just as qualified as an H1, but less free -- they cannot switch jobs, and if they get fired they must leave the country within 15 (!) days.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Roedou 9y ago
      I'm just coming up to the end of my L-1A visa. I can attest that the "leave the country immediately if you lose your job" situation is a very odd thing to have hanging over you every single day.
    - ojbyrne 9y ago
      L-1As are included in the recent USCIS guidance that establishes a 60 day grace period when employment ends. https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-final-rule-certain-employment-based-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visa-programs https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
  - pandaman 9y ago
    Look up "Blanket L-1", there is nothing like that for H1.
inlinefordecade 9y ago
To me it appears TCS and Infosys are being made the fall guys to keep the existing system of Indentured servitude in place for another decade or more. [edit:] Real villain is Microsoft, which has the largest lobbyists machine among the software companies in D.C. to make sure they are able to keep their indenture servants for as many years as possible.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  this is happening all over the US with all sorts of companies. I have seen entire departments minus management go this way, its not just a Microsoft phenomenon. BI is the most saturated area in my experience.
  - inlinefordecade 9y ago
    MSFT has the biggest lobbying presence in DC and all tech companies follow MSFT's lead. The history is that during Bill Clinton's Presidency (in the 1990's), there was an attempt to split MSFT up into 3 because of alleged monopolistic behavior. MSFT responded by building up the most formidable lobbying operation DC has ever seen from any Tech company. After the threat of splitting up MSFT was defeated, they turned their attention to Immigration policy and got passed the AWICA and AC-21 acts which directly resulted in our indentured servitude. MSFT lobbyists are the founders and architects of the "indentured servitude". They have been very unhelpful with any attempts to free people. Because MSFT has this formidable lobbying infrastructure, in matters of common interest (like H1-B), all Tech companies essentially follow MSFT's lead (or just outsource their immigration lobbying to MSFT).
    - tzs 9y ago
      I'm not sure how you measure "lobbying presence", but Google spends about twice as much as Microsoft per year on lobbying. Facebook and Amazon spend a little more each than Microsoft, but are within about 10% or so. See: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbying.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech...
dpweb 9y ago
Average US salary is 45k. Median is 30k. You would think we could train some US persons to do these high skilled jobs. They may like the raise.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  The last twenty years have been about deprofessionalization, not professionalization. Indian universities are terrible but are getting slightly better, US universities have been getting worse over time but are still better. But the process is about just getting enough numbers - why improve an education system when you can just harvest the small percentage of people who learn despite the poor quality - you only need so many skilled people, after all. The people running this don't care about your average American or Indian but they know there are a lot of Indians. Training people the usual way costs money and requires an education system where the educators aren't disposable themselves. That's not in the spirit of creating a few highly skilled, energetic, disposable folks who will work 14 hours/day for 10-20 years, squandering their only relatively high salaries until they are replaced by the next batch, with the entire workforce indentured by debt (or visa conditions) despite the poor quality of the education involved.
  - finid 9y ago
    Indian universities are terrible... That's a very broad statement. They are so terrible they manage to produce engineers and scientists who then come here and other parts of the world for higher degrees.
    - iamgopal 9y ago
      Skill engineers and scientists are despite terrible universities, not because of it.
    - robryan 9y ago
      A more accurate statement might be that non top tier universities are terrible? After doing a little hiring of Indians and working with them I get the impression that the top tier universities are pretty good, but the second tier and below are a lot worse in comparison to similarly ranked institutions in the US.
bingomad123 9y ago
> That's completely ignoring the fact that if you have cheaper workers Cheaper labor is good just like cheaper raw material. Trump wants American companies to buy expensive American steel instead of cheaper Japanese or Chinese steel of same quality. This is a net loss for American economy and a state sponsored coercive benefit for the American Steel industry. Personally it is both productive and economically beneficial to hire a SAP experience guy from Infosys instead of an American college kid who needs to be trained and who will leave in 1 year any ways. Of course I would hire the college kid for half the wage but then there is this sense of entitlement.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  cheaper labour is good for those who own capital, not the people providing labour.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- s73ver 9y ago
  "Cheaper labor is good" Not for the vast majority of Americans who's only source of income is selling their labor (physical, creative, intellectual, etc).
  - bingomad123 9y ago
    Lookup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
aangjie 9y ago
>That's completely ignoring the fact that if you have cheaper workers, you end up being underpaid and/or doing a job you'd rather not be doing. It's exactly why I think the H-1B limits might be a bad idea, but equal market pay for the migrant workers is more sensible regulation. (I'm ignoring the obvious cheat, companies can do, i.e: lower the job grade/title and then ask the hire to do the higher work too, but assuming that'll eventually get evened out with cultural assimilation and the hired workers getting upto speed about market rates vs roles vs responsibilities.)

by molyss 9y ago

exelius 9y ago

The point is that these Indian outsourcing firms would hire a white face as a sales person and use them to sell the exact same people on L1 visas (which are temporary work visas; but easy to get) at foreign rates and ship most of the work offshore. It would cost a little more for the outsourcing firms, sure, but it would be a net drain on the US economy (especially since it would keep real job creating entrepreneurial talent from coming to the US).

estebank 9y ago
> which are temporary work visas; but easy to get I wouldn't say that the L1 visas are easier to get. The only material differences I've noticed between L1 and H1B visas are * the first is not lottery based, * you must have worked for the company in another country for at least a year (time spent in the US while working for the company doesn't count), * that an L2 holding spouse can have an Employment Authorization Document pretty quickly (instead of H2B visa holders, who can only apply for an EAD fairly late in the process after being in the country for years), * L1 visa holders cannot change jobs, while H1B visa holders can (as difficult as that process can be).
- seldo 9y ago
  L1 visas are easier for the company to get, because there is no cap on the number issued. The employee on an L1 is just as qualified as an H1, but less free -- they cannot switch jobs, and if they get fired they must leave the country within 15 (!) days.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Roedou 9y ago
    I'm just coming up to the end of my L-1A visa. I can attest that the "leave the country immediately if you lose your job" situation is a very odd thing to have hanging over you every single day.
  - ojbyrne 9y ago
    L-1As are included in the recent USCIS guidance that establishes a 60 day grace period when employment ends. https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-final-rule-certain-employment-based-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visa-programs https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
- pandaman 9y ago
  Look up "Blanket L-1", there is nothing like that for H1.

inlinefordecade 9y ago

To me it appears TCS and Infosys are being made the fall guys to keep the existing system of Indentured servitude in place for another decade or more. [edit:] Real villain is Microsoft, which has the largest lobbyists machine among the software companies in D.C. to make sure they are able to keep their indenture servants for as many years as possible.

Shivetya 9y ago
this is happening all over the US with all sorts of companies. I have seen entire departments minus management go this way, its not just a Microsoft phenomenon. BI is the most saturated area in my experience.
- inlinefordecade 9y ago
  MSFT has the biggest lobbying presence in DC and all tech companies follow MSFT's lead. The history is that during Bill Clinton's Presidency (in the 1990's), there was an attempt to split MSFT up into 3 because of alleged monopolistic behavior. MSFT responded by building up the most formidable lobbying operation DC has ever seen from any Tech company. After the threat of splitting up MSFT was defeated, they turned their attention to Immigration policy and got passed the AWICA and AC-21 acts which directly resulted in our indentured servitude. MSFT lobbyists are the founders and architects of the "indentured servitude". They have been very unhelpful with any attempts to free people. Because MSFT has this formidable lobbying infrastructure, in matters of common interest (like H1-B), all Tech companies essentially follow MSFT's lead (or just outsource their immigration lobbying to MSFT).
  - tzs 9y ago
    I'm not sure how you measure "lobbying presence", but Google spends about twice as much as Microsoft per year on lobbying. Facebook and Amazon spend a little more each than Microsoft, but are within about 10% or so. See: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbying.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech...

dpweb 9y ago

Average US salary is 45k. Median is 30k. You would think we could train some US persons to do these high skilled jobs. They may like the raise.

joe_the_user 9y ago
The last twenty years have been about deprofessionalization, not professionalization. Indian universities are terrible but are getting slightly better, US universities have been getting worse over time but are still better. But the process is about just getting enough numbers - why improve an education system when you can just harvest the small percentage of people who learn despite the poor quality - you only need so many skilled people, after all. The people running this don't care about your average American or Indian but they know there are a lot of Indians. Training people the usual way costs money and requires an education system where the educators aren't disposable themselves. That's not in the spirit of creating a few highly skilled, energetic, disposable folks who will work 14 hours/day for 10-20 years, squandering their only relatively high salaries until they are replaced by the next batch, with the entire workforce indentured by debt (or visa conditions) despite the poor quality of the education involved.
- finid 9y ago
  Indian universities are terrible... That's a very broad statement. They are so terrible they manage to produce engineers and scientists who then come here and other parts of the world for higher degrees.
  - iamgopal 9y ago
    Skill engineers and scientists are despite terrible universities, not because of it.
  - robryan 9y ago
    A more accurate statement might be that non top tier universities are terrible? After doing a little hiring of Indians and working with them I get the impression that the top tier universities are pretty good, but the second tier and below are a lot worse in comparison to similarly ranked institutions in the US.

bingomad123 9y ago

> That's completely ignoring the fact that if you have cheaper workers Cheaper labor is good just like cheaper raw material. Trump wants American companies to buy expensive American steel instead of cheaper Japanese or Chinese steel of same quality. This is a net loss for American economy and a state sponsored coercive benefit for the American Steel industry. Personally it is both productive and economically beneficial to hire a SAP experience guy from Infosys instead of an American college kid who needs to be trained and who will leave in 1 year any ways. Of course I would hire the college kid for half the wage but then there is this sense of entitlement.

throwaway2048 9y ago
cheaper labour is good for those who own capital, not the people providing labour.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
s73ver 9y ago
"Cheaper labor is good" Not for the vast majority of Americans who's only source of income is selling their labor (physical, creative, intellectual, etc).
- bingomad123 9y ago
  Lookup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

aangjie 9y ago

>That's completely ignoring the fact that if you have cheaper workers, you end up being underpaid and/or doing a job you'd rather not be doing. It's exactly why I think the H-1B limits might be a bad idea, but equal market pay for the migrant workers is more sensible regulation. (I'm ignoring the obvious cheat, companies can do, i.e: lower the job grade/title and then ask the hire to do the higher work too, but assuming that'll eventually get evened out with cultural assimilation and the hired workers getting upto speed about market rates vs roles vs responsibilities.)