9 ms·

As someone who is merely a worker in SV, not a shill for a flood of cheap labor to inflate corporate profits and increase income inequality, god bless Gutierrez

by jquery 14y ago

As someone who is merely a worker in SV, not a shill for a flood of cheap labor to inflate corporate profits and increase income inequality, god bless Gutierrez. I know it pains the VPs and VCs in SV when they see the high salaries they have to pay me and my wife, so I am sure every single one of them is lobbying hard for this.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
You deserve that high salary far more than some guy named Raj [1]. Far better for Raj to continue living in poverty worse than the bottom 5% of America (== top 5% of India) than for you to make slightly less money. By the way, you do realize your high salary increases income inequality, right? (In both the US and the world.) [1] Choosing India to personify this example simply because I lived there.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > By the way, you do realize your high salary increases income inequality, right? In the same way that being fit makes obese people feel singled out?
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    No, in the same way that adding a value to a set of numbers that is well above average will likely increase the variance.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      So yes, exactly the same way. Having more people of a healthy weight makes those who are obese stand out more. The fit person shifts average weight away from the obese. Nobody would dream of criticizing the fit person for making the obese seem fatter in comparison though, because it is plainly clear that when a person gets fitter other people don't become fatter. Despite how the variance of the population changes depending on how fit or fat individuals get, the fit person is not to blame for the obese. Dieting does not make others fatter, and having a high salary does not make others poorer.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        Dieting does not make others fatter, and having a high salary does not make others poorer. True, which is why I don't care about inequality. I'm just pointing out that jquery's point is mathematically wrong - his high salary increases inequality. Immigration would reduce it.
    - jquery 14y ago
      These high salaries are taking from the top, not the bottom. More than any other industry right now, tech workers are making a significant fraction of the compensation of the people at the top of the management food chain. You can bet it rustles management jimmies when they see their workers living the same lifestyle as them! That's just un-American.
- gte910h 14y ago
  If Raj was paid the exact same amount as the American, and had the same bargaining power, that would be one thing. But Raj doesn't. Raj is stuck in the job, terrified of being fired, and making far less than the American. This is a not horrible situation for Raj, but it is making a worse job than the one they'd have to give an American. It also makes the jobs of the Americans already working there less stable (as terrified Raj isn't going to leave).
  - jquery 14y ago
    My wife was a Raj and you described her situation perfectly. Strangely, after getting her green card she got a promotion and a 50% raise.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    So make it easier for Raj. Don't make it even harder.
    - gte910h 14y ago
      I didn't say "No green cards". I said "No H1B visas". There is a good amount of the former. I'm not sure there is a good amount greater than 0 for the latter.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        Sure, but my point is an H1B is better than nothing.
        gte910h 14y ago
        I don't think it is, as it hurts the green card holders and citizens and satisfies the demand for more green cards BETTER in the eyes of the corps than green cards.
- spamizbad 14y ago
  I don't know how many Asian immigrants you've worked with, but the vast majority in my experience were well-heeled in their home country. Granted, their standard of living wasn't always on par with the American Middle class, but it was hardly poverty. Heck, one of my colleagues even had his own private driver back in India. I am a startup visa supporter but I have no delusions that in many cases it will be giving the privileged more privilege. It's goal is to spurn innovation in the US and make us richer - it's NOT a force in global equalization.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    I don't know how many Asian immigrants you've worked with, but the vast majority in my experience were well-heeled in their home country. My last job was in India, so I know a bit about it. The living conditions of the "middle class" in India are generally well below that of the poor in the US. Upper class lawyers and executives in Bandra and Colaba (richer areas of Mumbai) were little better off than people in housing projects in the US. The very richest people were able to afford luxuries like 23/7 (undrinkable) water, electricity, or maybe even a car. In contrast, about 70% of the US poor have a car and nearly all have water+power. But you are right that those who could afford a car could also afford a driver. The bulk of immigrant software engineers might have been rich by Indian standards. But they were very likely poor by US standards. This graph makes the point well: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... The top 5'th percentile in India is poorer than the bottom 5'th percentile in the US.
- protomyth 14y ago
  > By the way, you do realize your high salary increases income inequality, right? (In both the US and the world.) Income inequality is not the problem, but it sure sounds nice to the voters. Livability of lower income folks is the problem. Doesn't matter if there is only $100 difference between the lowest and highest wage earners if everyone is starving. I wish we spent less time being envious of the rich and lucky and spent a lot more time looking at ways we can use technology to make lower wages more livable.
- rayiner 14y ago
  From the perspective of the American government, yes, he does. The only duty of the American government is to Americans. Indians have a country and a government to protect their interests. God knows nobody in India wakes up in the morning and asks: "what would be good for Americans?" I'm not opposed to H1-B immigration as a principle (my father was an H1-B), but the only consideration should be how that immigration serves American interests.
gte910h 14y ago
They need to develop these people domestically from people far along the same pipeline. We don't need more visas with these level of unemployment.
- davidw 14y ago
  Because there are a fixed number of jobs to go around, right? Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy This article is pretty political though. I think I would have flagged it.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    I didn't say anything like that?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      It's implicit in your argument. The idea that immigration should be turned off to alleviate unemployment is a common economic fallacy, which ignores the fact that immigrants also consume and therefore create more demand and more industrial activity and more jobs. This works out nicely economically because the receiving country hasn't paid for them to be educated or nursed through childhood, so the immigrants are effectively little engines of consumption without any social debt, significantly increasing the economic benefit of their spending. I admit that this won't make much sense if you haven't taken some economics classes, it's counter-intuitive.
      - gte910h 14y ago
        >are effectively little engines of consumption Or people who come for a few years and send it all home. Or live here for years, sending vast percentages of it home. >paid for them to be educated or nursed through childhood We have already paid anything there we had to, so they're sunk costs for non-immigrants. The cost of aid programs, retraining and the like are pain points for non-immigrants and the government. Economics in one of those subject matters where vast swaths of it are only taken as real by some people in the field. Without knowing exactly what you're talking about (this labor lump policy doesn't seem to be settled economics from the cites), the fact there was a class on it doesn't necessarily mean it's something we should be making decisions on.
Androsynth 14y ago
Thats a very feudal attitude. I was born on the inside of the city walls so I am richer than the serfs. God bless the Baron who keeps us rich and them poor
- Spooky23 14y ago
  How enlightened of you. Why don't you go ask skilled textile workers or industrial workers like machinists or welders what they think about the issue? You can find them at McDonalds.
  - Androsynth 14y ago
    Kinda late and maybe no one will ever read it, but I can answer this one of two ways: What gives you the right to live the good life just because you were born within some semi-arbitrary boundary? Why do they have to live the life of poverty when they have nearly the same skill set as you? It is inevitable. The only reason that the overseas programmers havent taken all our jobs already is that there is still too big a communication gap (language, culture, remote enviroments, etc). Once that barrier is reduced, web/mobile programming will go overseas.
    - Spooky23 14y ago
      I understand your point of view, but I'm not sure why I should share it. The circumstances of my birth meant that my parents, my children and I live a wonderful, comfortable life. Why shouldn't I want to protect that? I want my son's children to have better opportunity than I have. And, why should I want to enable some corporation to make a fortune by chipping my neighbor's prosperity away? At the end of the day, the savings associated with labor arbitrage mostly beef up the party line. Shoes cost just as much as they did before production was shipped off to China. So does software. Call me a decadent, unethical and plain awful person, but I align myself with my family's best interests.
- bhangi 14y ago
  Yes, but it strikes me that most of the arguments for increasing or even eliminating quotas for skilled immigrants can also be viewed as a variant of the feudal attitude. After all the arguments boil down to: "let the skilled immigrants in or the jobs will move overseas." So in the end it is about preserving one's high wages or geographic locality of jobs. BTW I am completely pro-immigration, so don't take this as a slam against immigration. My ideal world would be where geography is irrelevant as far as jobs go, which should naturally normalize wages across the world -- no more need to migrate for economic reasons. Since that is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, the question is do we choose jobs or wages. Regardless of which side of the fence one falls on, three things need to be fixed: 1. Do not tie the H-1B to the employer 2. Allow spouses of H-1B holders to seek employment 3. The H-1B has no country quota, so remove the country quota for employment based green cards

by jquery 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago

You deserve that high salary far more than some guy named Raj [1]. Far better for Raj to continue living in poverty worse than the bottom 5% of America (== top 5% of India) than for you to make slightly less money. By the way, you do realize your high salary increases income inequality, right? (In both the US and the world.) [1] Choosing India to personify this example simply because I lived there.

jlgreco 14y ago
> By the way, you do realize your high salary increases income inequality, right? In the same way that being fit makes obese people feel singled out?
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  No, in the same way that adding a value to a set of numbers that is well above average will likely increase the variance.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    So yes, exactly the same way. Having more people of a healthy weight makes those who are obese stand out more. The fit person shifts average weight away from the obese. Nobody would dream of criticizing the fit person for making the obese seem fatter in comparison though, because it is plainly clear that when a person gets fitter other people don't become fatter. Despite how the variance of the population changes depending on how fit or fat individuals get, the fit person is not to blame for the obese. Dieting does not make others fatter, and having a high salary does not make others poorer.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Dieting does not make others fatter, and having a high salary does not make others poorer. True, which is why I don't care about inequality. I'm just pointing out that jquery's point is mathematically wrong - his high salary increases inequality. Immigration would reduce it.
  - jquery 14y ago
    These high salaries are taking from the top, not the bottom. More than any other industry right now, tech workers are making a significant fraction of the compensation of the people at the top of the management food chain. You can bet it rustles management jimmies when they see their workers living the same lifestyle as them! That's just un-American.
gte910h 14y ago
If Raj was paid the exact same amount as the American, and had the same bargaining power, that would be one thing. But Raj doesn't. Raj is stuck in the job, terrified of being fired, and making far less than the American. This is a not horrible situation for Raj, but it is making a worse job than the one they'd have to give an American. It also makes the jobs of the Americans already working there less stable (as terrified Raj isn't going to leave).
- jquery 14y ago
  My wife was a Raj and you described her situation perfectly. Strangely, after getting her green card she got a promotion and a 50% raise.
- philwelch 14y ago
  So make it easier for Raj. Don't make it even harder.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    I didn't say "No green cards". I said "No H1B visas". There is a good amount of the former. I'm not sure there is a good amount greater than 0 for the latter.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Sure, but my point is an H1B is better than nothing.
      - gte910h 14y ago
        I don't think it is, as it hurts the green card holders and citizens and satisfies the demand for more green cards BETTER in the eyes of the corps than green cards.
spamizbad 14y ago
I don't know how many Asian immigrants you've worked with, but the vast majority in my experience were well-heeled in their home country. Granted, their standard of living wasn't always on par with the American Middle class, but it was hardly poverty. Heck, one of my colleagues even had his own private driver back in India. I am a startup visa supporter but I have no delusions that in many cases it will be giving the privileged more privilege. It's goal is to spurn innovation in the US and make us richer - it's NOT a force in global equalization.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  I don't know how many Asian immigrants you've worked with, but the vast majority in my experience were well-heeled in their home country. My last job was in India, so I know a bit about it. The living conditions of the "middle class" in India are generally well below that of the poor in the US. Upper class lawyers and executives in Bandra and Colaba (richer areas of Mumbai) were little better off than people in housing projects in the US. The very richest people were able to afford luxuries like 23/7 (undrinkable) water, electricity, or maybe even a car. In contrast, about 70% of the US poor have a car and nearly all have water+power. But you are right that those who could afford a car could also afford a driver. The bulk of immigrant software engineers might have been rich by Indian standards. But they were very likely poor by US standards. This graph makes the point well: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... The top 5'th percentile in India is poorer than the bottom 5'th percentile in the US.
protomyth 14y ago
> By the way, you do realize your high salary increases income inequality, right? (In both the US and the world.) Income inequality is not the problem, but it sure sounds nice to the voters. Livability of lower income folks is the problem. Doesn't matter if there is only $100 difference between the lowest and highest wage earners if everyone is starving. I wish we spent less time being envious of the rich and lucky and spent a lot more time looking at ways we can use technology to make lower wages more livable.
rayiner 14y ago
From the perspective of the American government, yes, he does. The only duty of the American government is to Americans. Indians have a country and a government to protect their interests. God knows nobody in India wakes up in the morning and asks: "what would be good for Americans?" I'm not opposed to H1-B immigration as a principle (my father was an H1-B), but the only consideration should be how that immigration serves American interests.

gte910h 14y ago

They need to develop these people domestically from people far along the same pipeline. We don't need more visas with these level of unemployment.

davidw 14y ago
Because there are a fixed number of jobs to go around, right? Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy This article is pretty political though. I think I would have flagged it.
- gte910h 14y ago
  I didn't say anything like that?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    It's implicit in your argument. The idea that immigration should be turned off to alleviate unemployment is a common economic fallacy, which ignores the fact that immigrants also consume and therefore create more demand and more industrial activity and more jobs. This works out nicely economically because the receiving country hasn't paid for them to be educated or nursed through childhood, so the immigrants are effectively little engines of consumption without any social debt, significantly increasing the economic benefit of their spending. I admit that this won't make much sense if you haven't taken some economics classes, it's counter-intuitive.
    - gte910h 14y ago
      >are effectively little engines of consumption Or people who come for a few years and send it all home. Or live here for years, sending vast percentages of it home. >paid for them to be educated or nursed through childhood We have already paid anything there we had to, so they're sunk costs for non-immigrants. The cost of aid programs, retraining and the like are pain points for non-immigrants and the government. Economics in one of those subject matters where vast swaths of it are only taken as real by some people in the field. Without knowing exactly what you're talking about (this labor lump policy doesn't seem to be settled economics from the cites), the fact there was a class on it doesn't necessarily mean it's something we should be making decisions on.

Androsynth 14y ago

Thats a very feudal attitude. I was born on the inside of the city walls so I am richer than the serfs. God bless the Baron who keeps us rich and them poor

Spooky23 14y ago
How enlightened of you. Why don't you go ask skilled textile workers or industrial workers like machinists or welders what they think about the issue? You can find them at McDonalds.
- Androsynth 14y ago
  Kinda late and maybe no one will ever read it, but I can answer this one of two ways: What gives you the right to live the good life just because you were born within some semi-arbitrary boundary? Why do they have to live the life of poverty when they have nearly the same skill set as you? It is inevitable. The only reason that the overseas programmers havent taken all our jobs already is that there is still too big a communication gap (language, culture, remote enviroments, etc). Once that barrier is reduced, web/mobile programming will go overseas.
  - Spooky23 14y ago
    I understand your point of view, but I'm not sure why I should share it. The circumstances of my birth meant that my parents, my children and I live a wonderful, comfortable life. Why shouldn't I want to protect that? I want my son's children to have better opportunity than I have. And, why should I want to enable some corporation to make a fortune by chipping my neighbor's prosperity away? At the end of the day, the savings associated with labor arbitrage mostly beef up the party line. Shoes cost just as much as they did before production was shipped off to China. So does software. Call me a decadent, unethical and plain awful person, but I align myself with my family's best interests.
bhangi 14y ago
Yes, but it strikes me that most of the arguments for increasing or even eliminating quotas for skilled immigrants can also be viewed as a variant of the feudal attitude. After all the arguments boil down to: "let the skilled immigrants in or the jobs will move overseas." So in the end it is about preserving one's high wages or geographic locality of jobs. BTW I am completely pro-immigration, so don't take this as a slam against immigration. My ideal world would be where geography is irrelevant as far as jobs go, which should naturally normalize wages across the world -- no more need to migrate for economic reasons. Since that is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, the question is do we choose jobs or wages. Regardless of which side of the fence one falls on, three things need to be fixed: 1. Do not tie the H-1B to the employer 2. Allow spouses of H-1B holders to seek employment 3. The H-1B has no country quota, so remove the country quota for employment based green cards