3 ms·

> How naive. All I have to go on is 20+ years of employment at Apple, including several years as a H1B and Green Card holder. Can't possibly compete with your

> How naive. All I have to go on is 20+ years of employment at Apple, including several years as a H1B and Green Card holder. Can't possibly compete with your sincerely held beliefs. > Citizens have also more rights and companies love to have these clause that make you get your head down and work no questions asked This is undoubtedly the case for some H1B employers, but Apple is not a body shop style operation. Firings are extremely rare, H1Bs and citizens work side by side, and I have never seen the former more hesitant to speak up than the latter. You might want to entertain the thought that Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, or Betrand Serlet were not really hired for their pliability, but because they were genuinely qualified. > The solution here is to increase and qualify the local workforce That would definitely be helpful. But the trend seems to go the other way, with it being fashionable for opinion leaders to tell people to forego college, and education becoming more and more of a luxury. > and at the same time make the bar even higher for those from outside … forcing companies who prefer to hire the best qualified candidates over those with the "right" passport to shift their development activities elsewhere.

ipaddr 3y ago
"I thought that Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, or Betrand Serlet were not really hired for their pliability but because they were genuinely qualified" You lost me at this point. Many more qualified less pliable candidates exist but neither are the reason for their hiring. In general the most qualified person rarely gets the position. The easiest to bend is usually what power seeks.
- kbenson 3y ago
  What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals? "Power" also seeks competence. There's no one aspect that is sought is enough to to drown out all the others when hiring, at least not without an outside force requiring it. Do employers want employees that are easy to deal with? Obviously. Is that more important then skill and ability? It depends not only on the employer, but also probably the job being hired for, but nobody wants to hire an unqualified candidate over a qualified one.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals? Part of being a Marxist (parent comment) or an anti-immigrationist (grandparent comment) is that you're required to believe any statement anyone makes that has the right words in it. Even though you have no evidence for them.
trident5000 3y ago
Its naive to think expanding the labor pool wouldnt reduce labor costs. Its supply and demand/economics 101. And obviously they (and every other company) is going to complain they cant fill positions locally in order to gain access to this cheaper pool.
- astrange 3y ago
  If you're posting something is econ 101 you're probably wrong, and you're especially wrong if you claim adding people increases supply but not demand. People ARE demand. Labor economists don't use "econ 101", and importantly they prefer empirical evidence over theory.
  - trident5000 3y ago
    What a ridiculous take. There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). Then there are people to fill those positions (thats supply). You shift the demand/supply balance by expanding the supply pool. This is an extremely simple concept that you've somehow made complicated for yourself. People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.
    - astrange 3y ago
      > There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). The number of job openings isn't constant over longer than like a day. What you're doing here is called partial equilibrium analysis. > People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context. That you missed econ 201? People are demand because they buy things. Employees increase demand for other employees because jobs are created by "comparative advantage", and as long as your company is growing it's not possible to run out of that, although it does grow more specialized.

ipaddr 3y ago

"I thought that Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, or Betrand Serlet were not really hired for their pliability but because they were genuinely qualified" You lost me at this point. Many more qualified less pliable candidates exist but neither are the reason for their hiring. In general the most qualified person rarely gets the position. The easiest to bend is usually what power seeks.

kbenson 3y ago
What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals? "Power" also seeks competence. There's no one aspect that is sought is enough to to drown out all the others when hiring, at least not without an outside force requiring it. Do employers want employees that are easy to deal with? Obviously. Is that more important then skill and ability? It depends not only on the employer, but also probably the job being hired for, but nobody wants to hire an unqualified candidate over a qualified one.
- astrange 3y ago
  > What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals? Part of being a Marxist (parent comment) or an anti-immigrationist (grandparent comment) is that you're required to believe any statement anyone makes that has the right words in it. Even though you have no evidence for them.

trident5000 3y ago

Its naive to think expanding the labor pool wouldnt reduce labor costs. Its supply and demand/economics 101. And obviously they (and every other company) is going to complain they cant fill positions locally in order to gain access to this cheaper pool.

astrange 3y ago
If you're posting something is econ 101 you're probably wrong, and you're especially wrong if you claim adding people increases supply but not demand. People ARE demand. Labor economists don't use "econ 101", and importantly they prefer empirical evidence over theory.
- trident5000 3y ago
  What a ridiculous take. There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). Then there are people to fill those positions (thats supply). You shift the demand/supply balance by expanding the supply pool. This is an extremely simple concept that you've somehow made complicated for yourself. People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). The number of job openings isn't constant over longer than like a day. What you're doing here is called partial equilibrium analysis. > People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context. That you missed econ 201? People are demand because they buy things. Employees increase demand for other employees because jobs are created by "comparative advantage", and as long as your company is growing it's not possible to run out of that, although it does grow more specialized.