7 ms·

The point of H-1bs is to depress the prices of labor for any given job. (Econ 101: Increase supply, reduce cost.) So, no, I'm not really interested in increasi

by gergles 14y ago

The point of H-1bs is to depress the prices of labor for any given job. (Econ 101: Increase supply, reduce cost.) So, no, I'm not really interested in increasing the supply of skilled labor any further and driving prices for my labor any lower. The "talent war" is good for everyone with skills that works in the Valley. Feature, not a bug.

winter_blue 14y ago
Actually, there's a specific pre-condition to granting an H1-B visa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Labor_Condition_Application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Labor_Condition_Appli... It basically states, the employee must be paid the prevailing wage or higher. There are probably employers who flout this rule, but it isn't legal. When used legitimately, H1-B does increase the supply of talent in the valley.
- rada 14y ago
  The prevailing wage rule is a joke, for several reasons: 1. The ostensible reason for the H-1B program is a shortage of technical know-how, yet most H-1Bs are under 30 and most unemployed Americans are over 35. Wages comparison is moot when you pit junior jobs against senior jobs - again, in view of experience being the supposed goal of the program. 2. Wages do not account for working hours. If you work 12-hour days, your salary is effectively significantly lower than if you work 8-hour days. 3. Wages do not account for the downward pressure on market competition. If you are handcuffed into your job per your visa conditions, you can't shop for better offers elsewhere. Better explanation here: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html
- abhimishra 14y ago
  PERM regulations are also quite lax in MANY ways, and companies abuse this in order to be able to hire at a lower wage. For example, labor certification (to determine that there is a labor shortage that requires outside talent) is very easy to game: they can run 2 Sunday newspaper ads in the local newspaper to satisfy the primary labor cert requirement: http://tinyurl.com/czhop2f http://tinyurl.com/czhop2f How many people have newspaper subscriptions anymore, and how many tech workers look for jobs in the newspaper? It's also easy to game prevailing wage requirements by conducting surveys yourself or playing with the subjective terms of the law regarding 'comparable skillsets' etc
potatolicious 14y ago
You presume there is an undercurrent of malevolence to this when there isn't. If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. Wage depression, especially in an environment where wages are already remarkably elevated, enables further economic activity (i.e., software businesses with cost structures that prevent paying $250K+ an engineer can now exist and create wealth). And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated.
- rada 14y ago
  The median numbers I am finding are nowhere near 4.5x. I am seeing roughly $50k median household income ($70k dual earner households) vs. $55k median programmer salary. Where do you get your numbers?
- geebee 14y ago
  4.5 the median would be somewhere around $225,000. That would be a very high salary for a developer, far above the median. I also don't think that comparing to the median US household makes much sense. It would make more sense to compare salaries with other highly skilled and educated workers in very high cost areas. It's sobering to enter the "elevated" salaries of software developers into a housing affordability calculator and search San Francisco or the peninsula for what you could buy at that price. Most households are dual income now, which does get you in the range of that 4.5x household income you mentioned earlier. At this point, you're into pleasant, middle class areas. At this point, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I think that when it's a stretch for two highly educated workers to afford a fairly ordinary house in a decent if unfashionable part of town, salaries aren't elevated to the point where I find claims of a crucial shortage credible. If that's what employers want to pay, that's fine, but I see no reason for special government programs designed to increase the size of this workforce - it would seem to me that it is responding rationally to market signals.
- abhimishra 14y ago
  > Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. The economy wouldn't necessarily grind to an ugly hault - there is a sweetspot in the middle, which you are ignoring here. It could also be that people/businesses adjust to a _moderate_ supply restriction in some way (travel less, purchase locally, etc), new technologies arrive, and things change for the better. > If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. I also don't buy into the 'good for general population' argument necessarily - it is fair for employees (in this case, programmers) to also want what is best for themselves. Corporations generally want what is best for their shareholders (or executives) and not their employees OR the general population, which is part of the reason they ask for higher caps. > And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated. Why do you think wages are elevated? Many programmers I work with are very smart folks, and I personally feel that they are underpaid relative to the value they are creating within the organizations they work for. Furthermore, why is 4.5x the median household income randomly the bar here? Should every profession be capped in your view (doctors, lawyers, etc)?
Symmetry 14y ago
Its certainly good proximatly, and the wages of people like us would go up in the short term. But I worry that because network effects are so strong and less skilled labor would hurt tech companies enough that we'd start to see tech hubs in other countries start to succeed, and a general shrinking of the pie available to us US engineers and programmers if that happened. And from a "what's good for my country/the world/people less well off than I am" perspective easier immigration is an obvious win.

by gergles 14y ago

winter_blue 14y ago

Actually, there's a specific pre-condition to granting an H1-B visa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Labor_Condition_Application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Labor_Condition_Appli... It basically states, the employee must be paid the prevailing wage or higher. There are probably employers who flout this rule, but it isn't legal. When used legitimately, H1-B does increase the supply of talent in the valley.

rada 14y ago
The prevailing wage rule is a joke, for several reasons: 1. The ostensible reason for the H-1B program is a shortage of technical know-how, yet most H-1Bs are under 30 and most unemployed Americans are over 35. Wages comparison is moot when you pit junior jobs against senior jobs - again, in view of experience being the supposed goal of the program. 2. Wages do not account for working hours. If you work 12-hour days, your salary is effectively significantly lower than if you work 8-hour days. 3. Wages do not account for the downward pressure on market competition. If you are handcuffed into your job per your visa conditions, you can't shop for better offers elsewhere. Better explanation here: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html
abhimishra 14y ago
PERM regulations are also quite lax in MANY ways, and companies abuse this in order to be able to hire at a lower wage. For example, labor certification (to determine that there is a labor shortage that requires outside talent) is very easy to game: they can run 2 Sunday newspaper ads in the local newspaper to satisfy the primary labor cert requirement: http://tinyurl.com/czhop2f http://tinyurl.com/czhop2f How many people have newspaper subscriptions anymore, and how many tech workers look for jobs in the newspaper? It's also easy to game prevailing wage requirements by conducting surveys yourself or playing with the subjective terms of the law regarding 'comparable skillsets' etc

potatolicious 14y ago

You presume there is an undercurrent of malevolence to this when there isn't. If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. Wage depression, especially in an environment where wages are already remarkably elevated, enables further economic activity (i.e., software businesses with cost structures that prevent paying $250K+ an engineer can now exist and create wealth). And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated.

rada 14y ago
The median numbers I am finding are nowhere near 4.5x. I am seeing roughly $50k median household income ($70k dual earner households) vs. $55k median programmer salary. Where do you get your numbers?
geebee 14y ago
4.5 the median would be somewhere around $225,000. That would be a very high salary for a developer, far above the median. I also don't think that comparing to the median US household makes much sense. It would make more sense to compare salaries with other highly skilled and educated workers in very high cost areas. It's sobering to enter the "elevated" salaries of software developers into a housing affordability calculator and search San Francisco or the peninsula for what you could buy at that price. Most households are dual income now, which does get you in the range of that 4.5x household income you mentioned earlier. At this point, you're into pleasant, middle class areas. At this point, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I think that when it's a stretch for two highly educated workers to afford a fairly ordinary house in a decent if unfashionable part of town, salaries aren't elevated to the point where I find claims of a crucial shortage credible. If that's what employers want to pay, that's fine, but I see no reason for special government programs designed to increase the size of this workforce - it would seem to me that it is responding rationally to market signals.
abhimishra 14y ago
> Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. The economy wouldn't necessarily grind to an ugly hault - there is a sweetspot in the middle, which you are ignoring here. It could also be that people/businesses adjust to a _moderate_ supply restriction in some way (travel less, purchase locally, etc), new technologies arrive, and things change for the better. > If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. I also don't buy into the 'good for general population' argument necessarily - it is fair for employees (in this case, programmers) to also want what is best for themselves. Corporations generally want what is best for their shareholders (or executives) and not their employees OR the general population, which is part of the reason they ask for higher caps. > And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated. Why do you think wages are elevated? Many programmers I work with are very smart folks, and I personally feel that they are underpaid relative to the value they are creating within the organizations they work for. Furthermore, why is 4.5x the median household income randomly the bar here? Should every profession be capped in your view (doctors, lawyers, etc)?

Symmetry 14y ago

Its certainly good proximatly, and the wages of people like us would go up in the short term. But I worry that because network effects are so strong and less skilled labor would hurt tech companies enough that we'd start to see tech hubs in other countries start to succeed, and a general shrinking of the pie available to us US engineers and programmers if that happened. And from a "what's good for my country/the world/people less well off than I am" perspective easier immigration is an obvious win.