3 ms·

Nah, the employer will happily get rid of the US headcount and rehire the same guy in their home country or UK/Canada etc while paying a third of the salary. Ze

by rs186 1y ago

Nah, the employer will happily get rid of the US headcount and rehire the same guy in their home country or UK/Canada etc while paying a third of the salary. Zero employer is going to pay $100k.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
Yeah, I suspect more jobs are going overseas now.
- XenophileJKO 1y ago
  Certainly some will, but if we have learned anything from the 1990-Now, it is that remote R&D doesn't always save money or even work effectively at all.
  - rs186 1y ago
    The world in 1990 is no longer the world now. As someone who works with colleagues from India (like, physically in India), I don't see any reason the company keeps me over some other random guy in India, to be honest.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      A big change from then to now for remote collaboration is better connectivity in general, and technology such as Zoom and Teams. But how do you handle the time zone difference? That has always been the issue I've seen with any kind of real-time collaboration with contracrors or employees in India. If it's work that doesn't involve that, then what is the big difference now? Github? Slack?
      - rs186 1y ago
        If companies like airbnb allow you to work from anywhere in the world, it means timezone is not a problem. It definitely needs some investment though. > what is the big difference now? What is the difference between pre-2020 full-time in-office, vs 3 day or even fully remote? Nothing, in my opinion (CEOs don't agree though). If people are productive with 3 days in office, that could have been the norm before 2020. All you need is someone actually making it happen.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    The pressure to juice short-term dividends is as ceaseless as gravity or oxidation. It has to be overcome before lessons-learned can transform into wisdom-based outcomes.
alooPotato 1y ago
Couldn't companies have already done that if it was so easy to save 2/3 of the salary?
- rs186 1y ago
  They are, and increasingly so for the past 2-3 years. I guess you have not been paying attention. I know as a matter of fact that my company and other companies almost exclusively create new headcounts in India/UK/Germany. US headcounts are only for replacement or as exceptions. Even some replacement headcounts are moved overseas.
  - alooPotato 1y ago
    Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
    - rs186 1y ago
      What do you think recent layoffs are for?
      - alooPotato 1y ago
        I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I think we're saying the same thing - $100K fee won't change anything.
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  They already do. IBM has ~100K employees in India out of some 250-300K. That same labor budget would pay for 1/3rd that in the US. Edited to add: The local Indian economy doesn't sustain those many IBM employees. They are servicing the rest of the world.
  - alooPotato 1y ago
    Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
sarchertech 1y ago
At big tech companies they are already paying $200k or more than they'd pay the same worker in their home country for existing H-1Bs. An extra $100k might tip the scale for some but not for all. The most likely outcome is that body shops can no longer afford H-1Bs, but big tech still can.
- rs186 1y ago
  Extra $100k might "tip the scale"? If you are the employer, are you going to shell out 50% more for no good reason? Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means.
  - 0x1ceb00da 1y ago
    It's exactly like the tariff war with china. India refused to put sanctions on russia (who helped india in its wars with pakistan, who received help from USA), so now trump is saying we don't want your people in here. The outcome is probably going to be similar to the tariff war as well. They'll start out with totally absurd bullshit and then come down to something more reasonable. Maybe $10-20k per worker per year. From the point of view of the state, humans are just another resource, like crude oil. If you don't have something, you import it. And what's happening right now is haggling at the global scale. It's just a bunch of gorillas thumping their chests. Nobody cares about the citizens.
    - 0x1ceb00da 1y ago
      Yep, it's definitely designed to target indians. Navratri starts on monday lol.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    >Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means. Something like 0.3% of their yearly profit. They're already paying probably somewhere near $200k a year more. Clearly it's not for no good reason. Clearly there is some advantage to employing them here if they are already willing to pay $200k more than they have to. An extra $100k doesn't erase whatever that value is. The question is, is employing them here worth $200k to Amazon, but not $300k? Likely the case for some employees, but almost certainly not all.

by rs186 1y ago

Nah, the employer will happily get rid of the US headcount and rehire the same guy in their home country or UK/Canada etc while paying a third of the salary. Zero employer is going to pay $100k.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

Yeah, I suspect more jobs are going overseas now.

XenophileJKO 1y ago
Certainly some will, but if we have learned anything from the 1990-Now, it is that remote R&D doesn't always save money or even work effectively at all.
- rs186 1y ago
  The world in 1990 is no longer the world now. As someone who works with colleagues from India (like, physically in India), I don't see any reason the company keeps me over some other random guy in India, to be honest.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    A big change from then to now for remote collaboration is better connectivity in general, and technology such as Zoom and Teams. But how do you handle the time zone difference? That has always been the issue I've seen with any kind of real-time collaboration with contracrors or employees in India. If it's work that doesn't involve that, then what is the big difference now? Github? Slack?
    - rs186 1y ago
      If companies like airbnb allow you to work from anywhere in the world, it means timezone is not a problem. It definitely needs some investment though. > what is the big difference now? What is the difference between pre-2020 full-time in-office, vs 3 day or even fully remote? Nothing, in my opinion (CEOs don't agree though). If people are productive with 3 days in office, that could have been the norm before 2020. All you need is someone actually making it happen.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  The pressure to juice short-term dividends is as ceaseless as gravity or oxidation. It has to be overcome before lessons-learned can transform into wisdom-based outcomes.

alooPotato 1y ago

Couldn't companies have already done that if it was so easy to save 2/3 of the salary?

rs186 1y ago
They are, and increasingly so for the past 2-3 years. I guess you have not been paying attention. I know as a matter of fact that my company and other companies almost exclusively create new headcounts in India/UK/Germany. US headcounts are only for replacement or as exceptions. Even some replacement headcounts are moved overseas.
- alooPotato 1y ago
  Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
  - rs186 1y ago
    What do you think recent layoffs are for?
    - alooPotato 1y ago
      I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I think we're saying the same thing - $100K fee won't change anything.
prasadjoglekar 1y ago
They already do. IBM has ~100K employees in India out of some 250-300K. That same labor budget would pay for 1/3rd that in the US. Edited to add: The local Indian economy doesn't sustain those many IBM employees. They are servicing the rest of the world.
- alooPotato 1y ago
  Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?

sarchertech 1y ago

At big tech companies they are already paying $200k or more than they'd pay the same worker in their home country for existing H-1Bs. An extra $100k might tip the scale for some but not for all. The most likely outcome is that body shops can no longer afford H-1Bs, but big tech still can.

rs186 1y ago
Extra $100k might "tip the scale"? If you are the employer, are you going to shell out 50% more for no good reason? Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means.
- 0x1ceb00da 1y ago
  It's exactly like the tariff war with china. India refused to put sanctions on russia (who helped india in its wars with pakistan, who received help from USA), so now trump is saying we don't want your people in here. The outcome is probably going to be similar to the tariff war as well. They'll start out with totally absurd bullshit and then come down to something more reasonable. Maybe $10-20k per worker per year. From the point of view of the state, humans are just another resource, like crude oil. If you don't have something, you import it. And what's happening right now is haggling at the global scale. It's just a bunch of gorillas thumping their chests. Nobody cares about the citizens.
  - 0x1ceb00da 1y ago
    Yep, it's definitely designed to target indians. Navratri starts on monday lol.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  >Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means. Something like 0.3% of their yearly profit. They're already paying probably somewhere near $200k a year more. Clearly it's not for no good reason. Clearly there is some advantage to employing them here if they are already willing to pay $200k more than they have to. An extra $100k doesn't erase whatever that value is. The question is, is employing them here worth $200k to Amazon, but not $300k? Likely the case for some employees, but almost certainly not all.