4 ms·

Posted this elsewhere, but as a former H1B here's what should be done to end abuse: 1. Award a fixed pool of H1Bs to qualified applicants with the highest wage

by m0zg 8y ago

Posted this elsewhere, but as a former H1B here's what should be done to end abuse: 1. Award a fixed pool of H1Bs to qualified applicants with the highest wage in the offer (and monitor that this wage is in fact being paid). This should be easy to pass if your representatives in congress are in fact _your_ representatives. The president will sign this immediately, since he was the one who proposed it in the first place. 2. Establish at least 6 month grace period if the H1B person leaves the sponsoring company to go work elsewhere. Currently if you leave (or are laid off/fired) you have to GTFO within 2 weeks, so people endure abuse and low wages for years until they get a green card. There. There's your solution. No need to do anything else, guaranteed to work. It should not be possible to hire foreign workers into entry level positions at all.

an_cap 8y ago
Sort of like "it should not be possible to hire black workers into entry level positions at all"?
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  This is a very dumb straw man attack. Stop it.
  - an_cap 8y ago
    How so? I claim that severe discrimination (like banning a group of people from entry level positions) based on circumstances of birth is ethically dubious. I think that's why we don't entertain the idea of banning people from entry level work because they were born to black parents. Why doesn't it generalize to being born to Indian parents?
    - diogenescynic 8y ago
      Because it’s intellecually dishonest and an argument based on the fallacy of appeal to extremes. There is obviously a difference between citizenship and race... the entire purpose of a government is to service its citizens. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. If one country were to allow this first, they’d just be harming themselves, which would be against the interests of its citizens. You look out for your own citizens first. That’s just a government fundamental.
      - an_cap 8y ago
        Two points. 1. I am on board with a government serving its citizens. That of course doesn't allow governments to murder foreigners at will. I humbly submit that it also doesn't allow governments to prevent a willing American employer from hiring a willing Indian employee. 2. Again, why is it okay to look out for your own citizens first, but not to look out for your fellow whites first? Your argument so far seems to be - because! Suppose I start an organization (we'll call it the KKK) whose whole purpose is to serve whites. And if the KKK then goes around preventing all white from hiring blacks, surely that wouldn't be okay.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        Don't feed the troll.
      - rbanffy 8y ago
        > Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. Maybe it's worth examining why would that be from time to time.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      Now would be a good time for dang to get involved.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        ...why? Whether you agree with it or not, “people should have the right to relocate to other countries for work” doesn’t seem like an outrageously offensive or trolling opinion. Why does it cause such an emotional reaction for you?
        m0zg 8y ago
        Because immigration is not a "right". It's a privilege. And if this privilege is afforded at all, it should be afforded in such a way as to not screw the citizens whom the government represents, through social contract and otherwise. Otherwise the citizens should elect the government that will represent their interests. I mean it's not rocket science, it's civics 101.
        maksimum 8y ago
        Based on the US's history, relatively free immigration has made the country as a whole very successful. It's not obvious that citizens should want protectionist immigration policy.
        raverbashing 8y ago
        "Free" Yeah not really. This is a bit of a myth (a little bit like the "90% income tax rate" magic that people seem to believe) 1 - Immigration was severely limited by the technology (and let's say societal limitations) of the time. Getting a ticket on a ship was expensive, even for 3rd class. 2 Million Irish went to the US around the Famine time (time frame of 40yrs +/-). Compare that with the number of people from Latin America in the US (though % the number of Irish is higher) 2 - About 'societal limitations' going was nothing but a gamble. There was no expectations of government aid, of non-prejudice. No credit cards, no easy way to take money unless you actually took your money with you. Getting a ticket back was not an option. 3 - Even on Ellis Island people did get rejected and sent back on the basis of health https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-processing-time https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p... The real tightening of immigration seems to have happened around the 60s (though some other acts are from the 19th century like the one that limited Chinese immigration) So it was certainly "freer", in the same way that immigration for the ultra-rich today is almost free as well. Note that I'm not arguing against immigration (within some limits), but once a country's population increases I guess there are more people against it, and less of a practical interest in it.
vowelless 8y ago
> It should not be possible to hire foreign workers into entry level positions at all. And with that, you perhaps got rid of a (imo) very useful subset of potential future Americans: ones who went to college and graduate school in the US. This group went through it’s formative years in the United States. They are deeply imbibed in the culture and eventually start identifying with it. However, if they can’t get an entry level job, they now have to leave the country to go back to where they came from (or some other alternative like Canada / Australia). Instead, you would rather be bringing in 30 year olds from foreign nations who are unlikely to change and adopt America as much as someone who moved here at 18 would; and who have formed habits more suited to their nation than to the US. But as I mentioned above, perhaps this is desireable.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  > go back to where they came from That's not really a nice thing to say.
  - vowelless 8y ago
    It’s been said to me plenty. I don’t mind it :)
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      I would mind having the place I came from called a "shit hole".
airstrike 8y ago
> 1. Award a fixed pool of H1Bs to qualified applicants with the highest wage in the offer There is no reason for a fixed pool to exist, and it's not easy to rank applicants by wage given significant disparities in cost of living depending on geography
- m0zg 8y ago
  It blows my mind how, at the same time, the same people can argue in favor of "equality", and in favor of importing unlimited amounts of cheap labor to depress the wages of people who need money the most. It just doesn't compute, at all. And I'm perfectly fine with high cost of living areas getting all the H1Bs. Those areas also happen to have some of the highest tax rates in the country, so the US benefits.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    First of all, there's a difference between imposing a quota on the number of H-1Bs and raising the bar for applications to be approved. I'm in favor of the latter, and the former makes no sense. If the U.S. needs more skilled labor than it can provide, then it should allow as many immigrants as needed to come over to fill the gap. I hope that strikes you as a pretty obvious argument Second, inequality in the U.S. has nothing to do with an abundance of cheap labor. It has to do with macro trends in globalization and cheap jobs being outsourced to (mostly) Asia.

by m0zg 8y ago

an_cap 8y ago

Sort of like "it should not be possible to hire black workers into entry level positions at all"?

diogenescynic 8y ago
This is a very dumb straw man attack. Stop it.
- an_cap 8y ago
  How so? I claim that severe discrimination (like banning a group of people from entry level positions) based on circumstances of birth is ethically dubious. I think that's why we don't entertain the idea of banning people from entry level work because they were born to black parents. Why doesn't it generalize to being born to Indian parents?
  - diogenescynic 8y ago
    Because it’s intellecually dishonest and an argument based on the fallacy of appeal to extremes. There is obviously a difference between citizenship and race... the entire purpose of a government is to service its citizens. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. If one country were to allow this first, they’d just be harming themselves, which would be against the interests of its citizens. You look out for your own citizens first. That’s just a government fundamental.
    - an_cap 8y ago
      Two points. 1. I am on board with a government serving its citizens. That of course doesn't allow governments to murder foreigners at will. I humbly submit that it also doesn't allow governments to prevent a willing American employer from hiring a willing Indian employee. 2. Again, why is it okay to look out for your own citizens first, but not to look out for your fellow whites first? Your argument so far seems to be - because! Suppose I start an organization (we'll call it the KKK) whose whole purpose is to serve whites. And if the KKK then goes around preventing all white from hiring blacks, surely that wouldn't be okay.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      Don't feed the troll.
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      > Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. Maybe it's worth examining why would that be from time to time.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    Now would be a good time for dang to get involved.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      ...why? Whether you agree with it or not, “people should have the right to relocate to other countries for work” doesn’t seem like an outrageously offensive or trolling opinion. Why does it cause such an emotional reaction for you?
      - m0zg 8y ago
        Because immigration is not a "right". It's a privilege. And if this privilege is afforded at all, it should be afforded in such a way as to not screw the citizens whom the government represents, through social contract and otherwise. Otherwise the citizens should elect the government that will represent their interests. I mean it's not rocket science, it's civics 101.
        maksimum 8y ago
        Based on the US's history, relatively free immigration has made the country as a whole very successful. It's not obvious that citizens should want protectionist immigration policy.
        raverbashing 8y ago
        "Free" Yeah not really. This is a bit of a myth (a little bit like the "90% income tax rate" magic that people seem to believe) 1 - Immigration was severely limited by the technology (and let's say societal limitations) of the time. Getting a ticket on a ship was expensive, even for 3rd class. 2 Million Irish went to the US around the Famine time (time frame of 40yrs +/-). Compare that with the number of people from Latin America in the US (though % the number of Irish is higher) 2 - About 'societal limitations' going was nothing but a gamble. There was no expectations of government aid, of non-prejudice. No credit cards, no easy way to take money unless you actually took your money with you. Getting a ticket back was not an option. 3 - Even on Ellis Island people did get rejected and sent back on the basis of health https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-processing-time https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p... The real tightening of immigration seems to have happened around the 60s (though some other acts are from the 19th century like the one that limited Chinese immigration) So it was certainly "freer", in the same way that immigration for the ultra-rich today is almost free as well. Note that I'm not arguing against immigration (within some limits), but once a country's population increases I guess there are more people against it, and less of a practical interest in it.

vowelless 8y ago

> It should not be possible to hire foreign workers into entry level positions at all. And with that, you perhaps got rid of a (imo) very useful subset of potential future Americans: ones who went to college and graduate school in the US. This group went through it’s formative years in the United States. They are deeply imbibed in the culture and eventually start identifying with it. However, if they can’t get an entry level job, they now have to leave the country to go back to where they came from (or some other alternative like Canada / Australia). Instead, you would rather be bringing in 30 year olds from foreign nations who are unlikely to change and adopt America as much as someone who moved here at 18 would; and who have formed habits more suited to their nation than to the US. But as I mentioned above, perhaps this is desireable.

rbanffy 8y ago
> go back to where they came from That's not really a nice thing to say.
- vowelless 8y ago
  It’s been said to me plenty. I don’t mind it :)
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    I would mind having the place I came from called a "shit hole".

airstrike 8y ago

> 1. Award a fixed pool of H1Bs to qualified applicants with the highest wage in the offer There is no reason for a fixed pool to exist, and it's not easy to rank applicants by wage given significant disparities in cost of living depending on geography

m0zg 8y ago
It blows my mind how, at the same time, the same people can argue in favor of "equality", and in favor of importing unlimited amounts of cheap labor to depress the wages of people who need money the most. It just doesn't compute, at all. And I'm perfectly fine with high cost of living areas getting all the H1Bs. Those areas also happen to have some of the highest tax rates in the country, so the US benefits.
- airstrike 8y ago
  First of all, there's a difference between imposing a quota on the number of H-1Bs and raising the bar for applications to be approved. I'm in favor of the latter, and the former makes no sense. If the U.S. needs more skilled labor than it can provide, then it should allow as many immigrants as needed to come over to fill the gap. I hope that strikes you as a pretty obvious argument Second, inequality in the U.S. has nothing to do with an abundance of cheap labor. It has to do with macro trends in globalization and cheap jobs being outsourced to (mostly) Asia.