5 ms·

All H-1B requests within the past year to 1.5 years now result in a RFE. My experience as a hiring manager, both at a startup and at another enterprise level co

All H-1B requests within the past year to 1.5 years now result in a RFE. My experience as a hiring manager, both at a startup and at another enterprise level company, was that this doubled the cost of hiring H-1B candidates. This was unfortunate, because if you’re in a market where FANG companies and other tech companies are competing for candidates, it’s tough to find anybody qualified.

Femur 7y ago
Have you tried increasing your wages?
- throwawaytoday5 7y ago
  I think you know the answer to that question.
- belltaco 7y ago
  So if they cannot afford half a million in wages they should either close or move offshore? Offshoring is what is happening and will accelerate. Search the article for 'Toronto'.
  - povertyworld 7y ago
    Instead of fighting over the same people for a decade, they could try hiring some junior people and letting them take on increasing responsibility. The guy who made Stardew Valley lived in Seattle, had a CS degree, and couldn't get a job! It worked out for him in the end, but not for the companies constantly whining that they can't find workers.
    - TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
      Yes, our co-op programs were successful in providing a junior pipeline.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrchicity 7y ago
    You ask a great question: If a business isn't able to employ American workers at competitive pay, what purpose does it serve for the country? Why should it be here or exist? I have sympathy for cash poor startup founders, but offering substantial equity works wonders. Like a real amount, not something that rounds to 0. It's hard to feel bad for someone who wants to keep all the upside and not pay a good salary. Someone making 500k elsewhere should be a key hire, so spend or dilute yourself accordingly.
    - Xixi 7y ago
      If most American startups aren't able to hire American workers at competitive pay and start moving little by little to (say) Canada, aren't there a risk that the whole VC/startup ecosystem will slowly move there? If the Apple/Google/Amazon of tomorrow are Canadian, how does that serve USA or American workers? It's a short term vs long term balance. As an American you should want US to remain dominant in the startup ecosystem. Restricting startup access to skilled workers is counter-productive in the long run, even if it serves your short-term interests.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - damnyou 7y ago
      Businesses do not exist merely to serve their host countries. They serve the needs of many people, including shareholders, customers, employees and the communities (not just countries) they are based in.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
      > You ask a great question: If a business isn't able to employ American workers at competitive pay, what purpose does it serve for the country? Why should it be here or exist? One would assume that the business still pays taxes, bills, rent etc. It's still a net gain to the economy, especially when the alternative is for the work to go overseas.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    > So if they cannot afford half a million in wages they should either close or move offshore? Unironically yes. Thats is what they should do. If you pay below market wages, well sucks to be you, I don't care if you complain. But to give an actual good face alternative, they could hire lower skilled employees from non-traditional backgrounds, and train them up.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Are you concerned for foreigners wages? Because restrictions on the visa are what pushes them down, not up.
donw 7y ago
True! What boggles my mind is that a seemingly large number of companies, who are priced entirely out of the market in SV, still try and compete there, rather than opening an office in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, etc. Plenty of local talent, and the low end of the SF payscale is fiercely competitive in any of the above, largely because the cost of living is half-or-less of anything in the Bay.
- dajohnson89 7y ago
  what's your experience in hiring in these smaller cities? I've consistently heard that it's pretty hard to find quality talent at market prices.
  - donw 7y ago
    I hope to not come across as too snarky, but the issue for many employers may be in not fully comprehending either "quality talent" and "market prices". You won't have to pay Google-in-Mountain-View competitive wages, sure, but you do need to be competitive against the general tech market, inclusive of SV remote companies. Assume a reasonably skilled, experienced software engineer. According to Indeed's Salary Search[1], in San Francisco, they could reasonably expect to hit an annual salary of USD 170k at Companies That Are Not Google, whereas in Salt Lake City, that number drops to USD 90k. USD 90k is well below the bottom of the market in the Bay, and is near-as-makes-no-difference half of what our hypothetical engineer would make in SF. In terms of raw-cost-of-living, sure, those numbers work out. However, people do like to also build up their savings account, and that's where things fall apart. Post-tax, the SF salary will net you USD 110k. Your annual cost of living will run you somewhere around USD 77k. In Utah, you'll net USD 64k post-tax, and your annual living expenses will run you somewhere around USD 48k. Rent is 70% higher in SF, and cost-of-goods is 20% higher, but you also don't need to own a car or pay for car insurance, both of which you will need in Salt Lake. In SF, our hypothetical engineer will be able to bank USD 33k annually, more if they contribute to a 401(k) or other tax-deferred savings vehicle. In Salt Lake, that number drops down to USD 16k per annum. That's a massive gap, which is often similarly reflected in long-term compensation -- e.g., the engineer in SF might see USD 100k+ in annual stock options, whereas the one in Salt Lake will probably see half that. To be competitive on salary, that Salt Lake company would need to lay USD 120k on the table. That's 30% less than in SF -- plus all the other operational savings -- but not "half", which is what "market" seems to be at present. [1] https://www.indeed.com/salaries https://www.indeed.com/salaries

Femur 7y ago

Have you tried increasing your wages?

throwawaytoday5 7y ago
I think you know the answer to that question.
belltaco 7y ago
So if they cannot afford half a million in wages they should either close or move offshore? Offshoring is what is happening and will accelerate. Search the article for 'Toronto'.
- povertyworld 7y ago
  Instead of fighting over the same people for a decade, they could try hiring some junior people and letting them take on increasing responsibility. The guy who made Stardew Valley lived in Seattle, had a CS degree, and couldn't get a job! It worked out for him in the end, but not for the companies constantly whining that they can't find workers.
  - TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
    Yes, our co-op programs were successful in providing a junior pipeline.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mrchicity 7y ago
  You ask a great question: If a business isn't able to employ American workers at competitive pay, what purpose does it serve for the country? Why should it be here or exist? I have sympathy for cash poor startup founders, but offering substantial equity works wonders. Like a real amount, not something that rounds to 0. It's hard to feel bad for someone who wants to keep all the upside and not pay a good salary. Someone making 500k elsewhere should be a key hire, so spend or dilute yourself accordingly.
  - Xixi 7y ago
    If most American startups aren't able to hire American workers at competitive pay and start moving little by little to (say) Canada, aren't there a risk that the whole VC/startup ecosystem will slowly move there? If the Apple/Google/Amazon of tomorrow are Canadian, how does that serve USA or American workers? It's a short term vs long term balance. As an American you should want US to remain dominant in the startup ecosystem. Restricting startup access to skilled workers is counter-productive in the long run, even if it serves your short-term interests.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - damnyou 7y ago
    Businesses do not exist merely to serve their host countries. They serve the needs of many people, including shareholders, customers, employees and the communities (not just countries) they are based in.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    > You ask a great question: If a business isn't able to employ American workers at competitive pay, what purpose does it serve for the country? Why should it be here or exist? One would assume that the business still pays taxes, bills, rent etc. It's still a net gain to the economy, especially when the alternative is for the work to go overseas.
- stale2002 7y ago
  > So if they cannot afford half a million in wages they should either close or move offshore? Unironically yes. Thats is what they should do. If you pay below market wages, well sucks to be you, I don't care if you complain. But to give an actual good face alternative, they could hire lower skilled employees from non-traditional backgrounds, and train them up.
conanbatt 7y ago
Are you concerned for foreigners wages? Because restrictions on the visa are what pushes them down, not up.

donw 7y ago

True! What boggles my mind is that a seemingly large number of companies, who are priced entirely out of the market in SV, still try and compete there, rather than opening an office in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, etc. Plenty of local talent, and the low end of the SF payscale is fiercely competitive in any of the above, largely because the cost of living is half-or-less of anything in the Bay.

dajohnson89 7y ago
what's your experience in hiring in these smaller cities? I've consistently heard that it's pretty hard to find quality talent at market prices.
- donw 7y ago
  I hope to not come across as too snarky, but the issue for many employers may be in not fully comprehending either "quality talent" and "market prices". You won't have to pay Google-in-Mountain-View competitive wages, sure, but you do need to be competitive against the general tech market, inclusive of SV remote companies. Assume a reasonably skilled, experienced software engineer. According to Indeed's Salary Search[1], in San Francisco, they could reasonably expect to hit an annual salary of USD 170k at Companies That Are Not Google, whereas in Salt Lake City, that number drops to USD 90k. USD 90k is well below the bottom of the market in the Bay, and is near-as-makes-no-difference half of what our hypothetical engineer would make in SF. In terms of raw-cost-of-living, sure, those numbers work out. However, people do like to also build up their savings account, and that's where things fall apart. Post-tax, the SF salary will net you USD 110k. Your annual cost of living will run you somewhere around USD 77k. In Utah, you'll net USD 64k post-tax, and your annual living expenses will run you somewhere around USD 48k. Rent is 70% higher in SF, and cost-of-goods is 20% higher, but you also don't need to own a car or pay for car insurance, both of which you will need in Salt Lake. In SF, our hypothetical engineer will be able to bank USD 33k annually, more if they contribute to a 401(k) or other tax-deferred savings vehicle. In Salt Lake, that number drops down to USD 16k per annum. That's a massive gap, which is often similarly reflected in long-term compensation -- e.g., the engineer in SF might see USD 100k+ in annual stock options, whereas the one in Salt Lake will probably see half that. To be competitive on salary, that Salt Lake company would need to lay USD 120k on the table. That's 30% less than in SF -- plus all the other operational savings -- but not "half", which is what "market" seems to be at present. [1] https://www.indeed.com/salaries https://www.indeed.com/salaries