3 ms·

The complaints that I read are often that they aren't actually jobs that couldn't be fulfilled here, with local talent. There have been many claims of training

by KGIII 9y ago

The complaints that I read are often that they aren't actually jobs that couldn't be fulfilled here, with local talent. There have been many claims of training your replacement. If you're training them, it seems most probable that you're able to do the job. There is only a small subset that seems to just be bigoted. And, yes, they do exist. I am pretty sure they are low in number. Most of the complaints are about things like body shops but there have even been complaints involving Disney. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you can train your replacement, we probably didn't need a replacement. It's not like they move them up the ladder. They lay them off and pay the people with visas very little money, comparatively. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think, if true, they have a legitimate complaint. Most of them seem to agree that it should be bringing in experts and not lower paid people that need to be trained by the people they are replacing. So, what do you think? Would you agree that there are legitimate concerns? Many of these complaints do not, to me, appear xenophobic or racist.

rtpg 9y ago
You know what can solve most of the issues? Better worker protections. Stopping immigration doesn't stop you from having to train your replacement, they'll just be American instead. Making companies have to treat their workers with a bit of civility will solve a lot of problems.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Alright, I can agree with that. How do you propose doing so, in this specific political climate?
  - intended 9y ago
    You change the environment. Be clear - this rhetoric, which is so naively being echoed here on HN, of all places, is based on assumptions of a world which does not exist. In this specific case, and depth in the comment tree, there have been 2 incorrect assertions made, the clarification of which leads to the truth. The first is - maybe now america will invest in its own talent the second is - many times people are being told to train their own replacement The issue is that job distribution is bi-modal in tech. Theres a cluster at the very high end (jobs as a google scientist), and theres a cluster at the lower end (guys maintaining web pages). The talent people compete for around the world is for the top end of the curve - and america has been sucking these people away from their home country for ages. Furthermore - I have seen American talent in American colleges, you do a very good job of converting people into smart people. This process has only recently been corrupted because of the poor job scenario for the lower and middle ends of the job curve. But its still damn good. Closing those doors, after the rank xenophobia being displayed by the Administration means you lose out on the part of the curve you want to be competitive on.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Rhetoric doesn't do much good. I appreciate the reply but you may just have well said, "Magic!" ;-) To be clear, I'm not sure my question even really has an answer. I understand the need to attract top talent. If we don't, they are just going to go to work somewhere else. At the same time, do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? There are some big implications there and I have seen reasoned arguments to support doing so. It hits very strongly on the concept of what duties the government has to its citizens and to the rest of humanity who are not citizens. I really don't know. I don't have a solution. I can do your math homework, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to realistically determine the answers to these questions. I suspect that nobody would listen, even if I did have the answers. Ah well...
      - rtpg 9y ago
        >do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? This is a false dichotomy. These people could be just as skilled, if not more. So then your only argument is localism. Also, if we _let immigrants compete in the labor market properly_ by not handcuffing people like H-1Bs to their company.... they won't be cheaper. They could just get poached by another company or take a job at market rates.
        KGIII 9y ago
        If they were just as skilled, they'd not be being trained by the people they are replacing.
        _Tev 9y ago
        That's very wrong POV - you can train someone else to work with tooling/software/processes specific to your company, while still being less skilled or otherwise beneficial than him/her overall.
- jgh 9y ago
  Ah then I suppose we are in a bind because the party mentioned a couple parents up also seems to hate worker protections...
kamaal 9y ago
You just described capitalism as it exists today. Even if you did away with immigration, your problem has barely seen any solution at all. If your fear is being replaced by someone who is ready to work for less. There are enough kids who will do anything for a job, including taking a good pay cut. To replace you. The real issue you must be worried about being relevant to the work you are doing. Being productive, resourceful and keeping your skills up to date. And yes never putting yourself in a situation where you think some particular work is beneath your station.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Oh, no. I am quite happily retired. However, I would suggest that we have a moral obligation to avoid sinking as low as we possibly can. Yes, if people are hungry, they will work for pennies on the dollar. Ethically, I would suggest we avoid desperate people en masse, for a whole mess of reasons. Hell, I can make a financial argument that suggests we not do that. You get better work from content people who have the means to consume. I guess it's more a thought exercise. It's probably up to us, as individuals, to do the right things. We don't really have much history of doing so, collectively. Buggered if I have the answers.
  - kefka 9y ago
    For me, I've always liked highlighting the problem at hand. It can be multi-faceted with different actors wanting mutually exclusive things - where the resolution is violence. But in talking of these, I see it more akin to the way Open Source software is up front and public about it - with the idea that enough eyeballs, these problems can be worked with. Being able to even frame the question, with politically charged areas like this, is a step in the right direction. And no single person is expected to figure it out. But a thousand of us could.
nandemo 9y ago
So your reply to this... > > This is literally a visa where the requirement is to create jobs for American citizens is this? > The complaints that I read are often that they aren't actually jobs that couldn't be fulfilled here, with local talent
- KGIII 9y ago
  No, I was responding to the questions asked, more or less. It is merely a verbose reply to point out that there are some legitimate concerns about guest workers. I don't expect that to change in any meaningful way. I would say there are no reasons to expect any different. I'd not be surprised to see Company X 'invest' a certain amount in someone just to get a cheaper person here and then get their investment money back, probably with interest, while paying the imported labor very poorly. Hell, it'd probably be even less expensive because said company will just use said startup as a contractor. I have no reason to suspect they will doing any additional oversight or enforcement.
lazaroclapp 9y ago
Others are giving better replies to this than I can. I will just note two things: 1) This is a particular case where making immigration difficult to the people involved directly results in less jobs for Americans, as observed above. Yet that's still what is being done. It is clear from it that, for some people, the desire to reduce immigration is not just related to job security. This doesn't mean there aren't legitimate concerns, just that it doesn't seem to me that the explicit legitimate concerns are the only issue here. 2) The particular cohort of H1-B developers I am more familiar with compete with American grads for equal jobs and equal salary/RSUs, and are nobody's 'cheaper replacement'. Now, I am not saying that what you describe doesn't happen. But you know what would help there? Making it easier for people in H1-B's to change employers or even stay unemployed (even on their own money, without benefits) for a few months in the U.S. searching for a job if their employer is exploitative! There is a sort of issue 2.1. here that I will acknowledge: yes, having more skilled people come in increases supply and lowers prices for labor, slightly. But most of the jobs in question are at companies that target a global market, this means not making use of a global labor pool is both ideologically suspect and a bad long term plan. Talented people in other places will still compete with you, and now you don't even get their taxes or the effect their talent creates in the available job opportunities in your area. If, say, you keep all the Amazon jobs for Americans but end up buying all your stuff from Alibaba the world over, was that a good outcome for you?

by KGIII 9y ago

rtpg 9y ago

You know what can solve most of the issues? Better worker protections. Stopping immigration doesn't stop you from having to train your replacement, they'll just be American instead. Making companies have to treat their workers with a bit of civility will solve a lot of problems.

KGIII 9y ago
Alright, I can agree with that. How do you propose doing so, in this specific political climate?
- intended 9y ago
  You change the environment. Be clear - this rhetoric, which is so naively being echoed here on HN, of all places, is based on assumptions of a world which does not exist. In this specific case, and depth in the comment tree, there have been 2 incorrect assertions made, the clarification of which leads to the truth. The first is - maybe now america will invest in its own talent the second is - many times people are being told to train their own replacement The issue is that job distribution is bi-modal in tech. Theres a cluster at the very high end (jobs as a google scientist), and theres a cluster at the lower end (guys maintaining web pages). The talent people compete for around the world is for the top end of the curve - and america has been sucking these people away from their home country for ages. Furthermore - I have seen American talent in American colleges, you do a very good job of converting people into smart people. This process has only recently been corrupted because of the poor job scenario for the lower and middle ends of the job curve. But its still damn good. Closing those doors, after the rank xenophobia being displayed by the Administration means you lose out on the part of the curve you want to be competitive on.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Rhetoric doesn't do much good. I appreciate the reply but you may just have well said, "Magic!" ;-) To be clear, I'm not sure my question even really has an answer. I understand the need to attract top talent. If we don't, they are just going to go to work somewhere else. At the same time, do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? There are some big implications there and I have seen reasoned arguments to support doing so. It hits very strongly on the concept of what duties the government has to its citizens and to the rest of humanity who are not citizens. I really don't know. I don't have a solution. I can do your math homework, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to realistically determine the answers to these questions. I suspect that nobody would listen, even if I did have the answers. Ah well...
    - rtpg 9y ago
      >do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? This is a false dichotomy. These people could be just as skilled, if not more. So then your only argument is localism. Also, if we _let immigrants compete in the labor market properly_ by not handcuffing people like H-1Bs to their company.... they won't be cheaper. They could just get poached by another company or take a job at market rates.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        If they were just as skilled, they'd not be being trained by the people they are replacing.
        _Tev 9y ago
        That's very wrong POV - you can train someone else to work with tooling/software/processes specific to your company, while still being less skilled or otherwise beneficial than him/her overall.
jgh 9y ago
Ah then I suppose we are in a bind because the party mentioned a couple parents up also seems to hate worker protections...

kamaal 9y ago

You just described capitalism as it exists today. Even if you did away with immigration, your problem has barely seen any solution at all. If your fear is being replaced by someone who is ready to work for less. There are enough kids who will do anything for a job, including taking a good pay cut. To replace you. The real issue you must be worried about being relevant to the work you are doing. Being productive, resourceful and keeping your skills up to date. And yes never putting yourself in a situation where you think some particular work is beneath your station.

KGIII 9y ago
Oh, no. I am quite happily retired. However, I would suggest that we have a moral obligation to avoid sinking as low as we possibly can. Yes, if people are hungry, they will work for pennies on the dollar. Ethically, I would suggest we avoid desperate people en masse, for a whole mess of reasons. Hell, I can make a financial argument that suggests we not do that. You get better work from content people who have the means to consume. I guess it's more a thought exercise. It's probably up to us, as individuals, to do the right things. We don't really have much history of doing so, collectively. Buggered if I have the answers.
- kefka 9y ago
  For me, I've always liked highlighting the problem at hand. It can be multi-faceted with different actors wanting mutually exclusive things - where the resolution is violence. But in talking of these, I see it more akin to the way Open Source software is up front and public about it - with the idea that enough eyeballs, these problems can be worked with. Being able to even frame the question, with politically charged areas like this, is a step in the right direction. And no single person is expected to figure it out. But a thousand of us could.

nandemo 9y ago

So your reply to this... > > This is literally a visa where the requirement is to create jobs for American citizens is this? > The complaints that I read are often that they aren't actually jobs that couldn't be fulfilled here, with local talent

KGIII 9y ago
No, I was responding to the questions asked, more or less. It is merely a verbose reply to point out that there are some legitimate concerns about guest workers. I don't expect that to change in any meaningful way. I would say there are no reasons to expect any different. I'd not be surprised to see Company X 'invest' a certain amount in someone just to get a cheaper person here and then get their investment money back, probably with interest, while paying the imported labor very poorly. Hell, it'd probably be even less expensive because said company will just use said startup as a contractor. I have no reason to suspect they will doing any additional oversight or enforcement.

lazaroclapp 9y ago

Others are giving better replies to this than I can. I will just note two things: 1) This is a particular case where making immigration difficult to the people involved directly results in less jobs for Americans, as observed above. Yet that's still what is being done. It is clear from it that, for some people, the desire to reduce immigration is not just related to job security. This doesn't mean there aren't legitimate concerns, just that it doesn't seem to me that the explicit legitimate concerns are the only issue here. 2) The particular cohort of H1-B developers I am more familiar with compete with American grads for equal jobs and equal salary/RSUs, and are nobody's 'cheaper replacement'. Now, I am not saying that what you describe doesn't happen. But you know what would help there? Making it easier for people in H1-B's to change employers or even stay unemployed (even on their own money, without benefits) for a few months in the U.S. searching for a job if their employer is exploitative! There is a sort of issue 2.1. here that I will acknowledge: yes, having more skilled people come in increases supply and lowers prices for labor, slightly. But most of the jobs in question are at companies that target a global market, this means not making use of a global labor pool is both ideologically suspect and a bad long term plan. Talented people in other places will still compete with you, and now you don't even get their taxes or the effect their talent creates in the available job opportunities in your area. If, say, you keep all the Amazon jobs for Americans but end up buying all your stuff from Alibaba the world over, was that a good outcome for you?