Schwartz, Mulcahy: When will Uncle Sam get a clue on H-1Bs?
PALO ALTO, Calif.--Anne Mulcahy and Jonathan Schwartz became the latest technology CEOs to call on the government to let more foreign-born computer engineers into the United States.
Anne Mulcahy and Jon Schwartz
(Credit: Charles Cooper/CNET News.com)"You have to raise the quotas," said Mulcahy, CEO at Xerox. Schwartz, who runs Sun Microsystems, struck the same theme.
The message went down well with an audience of Silicon Valley elites gathering at Stanford Friday for a daylong conference on political economy. Then again, they were facing a free-trade crowd of true believers, including headliners like eBay's Meg Whitman and former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, as well as guys representing big investment houses, venture capitalists, and money managers.
I doubt their pitch would go down as well in places like Ohio or Michigan. So far, however, the H-1B debate hasn't turned into a divisive presidential campaign issue. Neither the Clinton nor Obama camps have taken up the question. Ditto for John McCain. High-tech companies like Xerox and Sun want Congress to raise the cap on employee-sponsored green cards and offer quota exemptions to foreigners with serious math or technology chops. SIA President George Scalise, who is sitting 10 feet away from me, wants to give green cards to talented foreign students.
"It gets worse each year because our needs are greater," Mulcahy added. But if I'm reading her correctly, Xerox's boss doesn't have any confidence that legislators are going to move quickly.
"We have just been stuck on inaction in this country. It's not pros or cons. It's inaction, it's the political polarization in this country that has made for extraordinary problems.
"Having access to international talent is a big part of what's fueled our technology industry," she said. "The statistics about new companies that have started up the last ten years and the number of founders who came from outside this country...I mean, this is just dumb."
"So you put a limit here, we'll go hire there," Schwartz added. "We're not dumb."
Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz
(Credit: Charles Cooper/CNET News.com)So why can't tech's power elite get Washington to blow in its direction?
"Damned if I knew," he said. "We've all tried. We've all done the perpetual flights to Washington to talk with them...there's an element of, "Does that drive my election?" It'll help this room. This room doesn't represent a lot of voters. It represents a lot of money."
That got a good laugh out of the swells, but I think Mulcahy nailed it with her answer.
"There's a perception that global trade and big business is leading to losses in the economy and (politicians) don't want to get on the wrong side of that argument."
That's the way things work in Washington but Schultz said the tenor of the battle over H-1Bs may take on a different look after the November election.
"A year or so ago, an effort to get comprehensive reform in immigration was tried with the (backing) of the President and Senators McCain and Kennedy. In the end, it didn't fly. But that was the right track. All the people who were running against that idea (in the primaries)--have since lost. So that's progress and let's hope that it continues."
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.
- Topics:
-
Technology,
-
Business currents
- Tags:
-
H-1B,
-
immigration,
-
Anne Mulcahy,
-
Jonathan Schwartz
- Share:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
I am a foreign-born Ph.D. and I got my green card through marriage. The amount of red tape to get it from my Ph.D. was prohibitive. Also it was very strange that even though I had lived ten years in the US (as an F-1 student) that counted for literally nothing as far as the feds are concerned.
And as far as I know Green Cards are for those considered Permanent residents and take a fair while to get, even if a foreigner marries a U.S citizen it can take years to get one. At leaset that is the information I have from some freinds that had them before they were naturalized.
Every engineering & science Ph.D graduate on an F-1 visa should be given a Green Card (after successfully competing a back ground check). This brings needed talent and skills to the U.S. work force.
AND does it in a way that isn't the typical H1-B abuse we suffer right now.
P.S. maybe we should included master graduates in this deal also.
companies would just simply move overseas. it is a global market these days.
I have an idea, how about all these high tech companies actually invest in the education of the people in the country that allows them to do the things they do. They'll get the talent they claim they need and it will boost our economy due to the influx of more skilled workers making higher wages and therefore paying more taxes. Which in turns allows the government to pay off the deficit and invest in more programs such as healthcare and K-12 education. It doesn't even have to be college education either, they can setup technology schools that teach the specific skills and technologies they require their employees to know.
Oh yeah that's not what it's really about, they just want cheaper bodies, they could care less if they're skilled or not. I say ban H-1b visas altogether and tax the crap out of companies who go overseas to hire lower income workers for high tech jobs. H-1bs are just a political correct way of saying indentured servitude. That was supposedly outlawed in the 1800's.
-Tim
Second, the "indentured servitude" stuff may have been true in the 90ies, but nowadays, people on H1 can easily change jobs.
May I suggest to actually learn about this stuff before mouthing off?
The better solution is to actually educate American kids. Math and science in the US is in a pathetic state.
Just learning to program in a language or two does not cut it. A true theoretical and practical background is needed for Computer Science people. That means a ton of hard work in school and a constant need to keep up on education throughout your career.
Ditto for Engineering professions.
Most of the jobs that get outsourced are the fairly unskilled IT jobs, not the ones that require a strong background. The jobs that H1B's fill are those that couldn't otherwise be filled by QUALIFIED US applicants. No, knowing Java or C# doesn't make you skilled.
The push for h-1b workers, is a push for cheap IT labor.
H-1b workers are, more typically, being used to fill the starting level software development jobs. And in doing so depriving U.S. workers of a chance to start their careers.
Microsoft and Google reject enough workers each week (usually because the worker just doesn't have the right inside connections), to fill their hiring need for the year. They don't need more help from body-shop contract workers, except to keep wages low.
There are thousands of companies out there hiring H-1b workers for 30-40k, and then contracting them out at 100k. It's a big scam, that is undercutting the earnings of average U.S. workers.
Further this program is a conduit to the offshoring of U.S. jobs. The h-1b program has destroyed more jobs then it has created.
The h-1b program is not a immigration program, it is a temporary worker program.
Another common scenario is that companies use this program to import temporary workers, and train them on how the department works, and then take the skills back to Indian along with the jobs of hard working americans.
The h-1b program needs reform. The U.S. cannot afford to allow a program that is basically a huge brain-drain on the United States, to continue to destroy the true core of Sortware and Technology infrastructure.
And that true-core, is the working U.S. citizen, not the temporary worker who sends his wealth, our jobs, and skills back to his home country.
And companies reject applicants if they don't have the skills, not because of a lack of "inside connections." Claiming otherwise only shows your lack of knowledge of hiring processes.
The brain drain that you so lament happens because there aren't enough H1s. If we had more H1s, the people would stay here, and would contribute to the US economy. But right now, they have to go back home and there they obviously compete with us.
Actually the problem with H1-B's that that approximately 50% of them are abused. You should question why is it that the Indian outsourcing companies Wipro, HCL, Infosys, etc... take ~50% of the H1-B visa's... they bring over barely IT skilled folks to work on-site at U.S. companies that have outsourced to them - to do the few remaining jobs that have to be done on-site. When my ex-company AMD outsourced to HCL in the mid-2000's 90% of the AMD employees in IT were laid-off and replaced with idiots from HCL on H1-B's. Someone PLEASE tell me how they got those folks H1-B visas??? They were totally useless. But yeah, HCL saved mega-$$$ doing this rather than hire all the trained and talented ex-AMD IT workers.
IF Congress would get off its ass and cleanup these H1-B abuses, there would a doubling of visas available for truly talented engineers for these high-tech companies that are calling for higher limits. One really has to wonder why these companies aren't calling for this...
Unfortunately, like many other things, the good and the bad are lumped into one. Like a discussion on immigration basically focuses on illegal immigrants and overlooks the contributiions made by legal immigrants.
The current H1B regs. treats the 2 month experience Java guy and the PhD in computer science in a similar fashion. What happens that the Java guy usually knows the right 'h1b factory' and gets a visa and the PhD guy ends up going back to his country, often working for Intel/Microsoft/TI or the likes. I personally know of people who did that and ended up starting and leading new groups back in their country using the valuable US education and taking valuable jobs back to their own country.
So, a comprehensive solution is needed, considering both sides. Maybe a preference for US-educated for the H1B. But increasingly, it looks like any immmigration legistlation that benefits H1Bs will be politically unpalatable. Also, in the recent years, the immigration debate has become colored by race, ethnic origin or religion of immigrants and the fact that most H1Bs are from India or China does not help their cause - it is easier to demonize them.
Of course if you want a 100K salary without any degree & skills, sure keep dreaming, but there are better qualified candidates in this world .. so get used to competition.
sure, selling Chevy & John Deere in new markets is good for american economy, but competition from work force from the same markets is not good because it undermines the american works .. ********* ..
study evening and nights & face the competition like a man.... don't complain. The best man wins. the looser just complains ...
I'm sorry you're not in a position to see things that way.
And this "cheap labor" BS is really getting old. You obviously have no idea of the real world in companies.
1) The Bureau of Labor statistics state that there are (preliminary numbers) ~682,000 job openings in the 'Professional and Business Services' industry for Dec 2007. For fiscal year 2008, the H1-B cap (65,000 + 20,000 for people with advanced degrees{PHDs, and such}) was completely exhausted before the end of the first day that applications where opened (April 2nd, 2007). Also consider that- (as per the White House in February) US economy has added about 860,000 jobs over the last 12 months ? an average of 72,000 jobs per month ( i think this figure includes farm job though). So the argument that the US needs highly skilled immigrants is a somewhat solid one.
To really be able to accept this point though, you also have to believe that one job taken in the US does not STRICTLY mean one job lost for someone else in the US, since that job taken will help create more growth, and hence more jobs.
2) Additionally, by law H1-B applicants MUST be payed at least the 'prevailing wage'. And while 'prevailing wage' can be manipulated somewhat, this at least helps fight the misconception of bringing in 'cheap labor'.
3) Consider that most immigrant workers are probably willing to be
quite mobile, (i.e. move to the middle of nowhere for their job). It is my understanding that it is because of this point, with doctors in particular, that some far off rural US areas have better healthcare than they would otherwise have, or be able to afford. (Here is one point where 'prevailing wages' get gray)
4) I believe the execs are right to argue that-- in the long run -- US competitiveness will suffer. I will use my particular case for example. To get an H1-B, i.e. a visa that would allow me to work in the US, it would take AT LEAST 6 months since applications open in April 2, and visas become active in October. This means that if a US company needs my skillset or people with my skillset, in May, they would have to wait ~1.5 years to get them through the H1-B program (11 months to be able to apply for a visa, and 6 months to get it authorized, and this is assuming you 'win' the H1-B lottery - remember there is a cap and its not first come first served, or most qualified wins). Compare this to the UK, where I ended up going. It took me 3 weeks to get a UK work permit, and I could apply at any point during the year, not just on April 2nd, as is the case in the US.
So a company in the UK that finds a perfect candidate for a job that so happens to not be a citizen of the UK (or EU) has to wait 1 month to get him, an equivalent US company has to wait 0.5-1.5 years to get A CHANCE to get him to work in the US (remember, there is a cap which last year was exhausted on the first day applications opened), depending on what month they find him.
5) there are other 'non-immigrant' work visas, namely the L-1 visa, and I am surprised noone ever mentions them. I will not go into any details regarding them, other than to use it to point out that most people that deride the US worker visa program, do not completely understand it fully, and its complexities (in all fairness, it is VERY complex!).
Hope this helps point out that H1-Bs are not so easy to get as so many people think and that, arguably, the US does in fact benefit from having people that are willing and able to jump all these hoops in hurdles. Especially if you believe most studies now that state that a diverse work-force is more 'productive' than a non-diverse one.
Best regards,
-Lostpupp
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6173035-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/
Best regards,
Lostpupp
I'll take this point by point.
1. I assume your point is that many jobs were created in the past year, and so there is a need to fill them. Remember that 72,000 jobs created for a population growth rate (largely through immigration, legal and otherwise) that requires 115,000 jobs per month is not really an argument that more labor is needed. You are right, though, that many jobs added (especially manufacturing and high-level service jobs) create a net growth rather than displacement of jobs. There is an argument here, but much of the immigrant labor is not really in this category.
2. Laws against paying below prevailing wage. Since wages are determined by the market, this is very difficult to measure or enforce fairly. Therefore, the main enforcement against paying below prevailing wage is provided by the hiring company. In the piece of Intel where I work, H1Bs appear not to be abused. But reports from the industry are mixed.
3. Immigrants are more willing to be mobile. This is actually a very good argument for employment in certain areas, but probably not the driver for H1Bs in most cases.
4. The competitiveness of U.S. employers is improved by the existence of H1Bs. Clearly this *is* the case (having a larger pool or potential employees is alway good, and the cheaper the better). But I don't care how well U.S. employers do except to the extent that they employ Americans at good wages.
If American companies can hire a person with less freedom to change jobs than I have, they have more leverage over that employee than they have over me. Because the employee market is open, whatever wage they can pay that employee at, they can pay me. The prevailing wage has dropped, and no one notices, and no one can prove it. The ripple effect of this is very large. I think we should act to counter this effect by offering visas to "work immigrants" and not to companies. The complexity of applying for an H1B visa is not so effective a counter as you might think for this effect, which is why you see so many front-loaded requests for H1Bs. It's a lottery for access to a large and cheap pool of labor. Most companies figure out how to use H1Bs long *after* they apply.
On the other hand, the simple existence of a larger labor pool will also lower wages. This is simply the global reality and *not* an effect we should attempt to counter. I welcome global immigrants to America that have the same freedoms I have. I am confident in my ability to compete with them, and hiring them creates more job openings that I can compete for without *artificially* lowering wages. Make sense?
Oh, and by the way, I don't buy the diversity argument. It's fun to work in a diverse workforce, but I don't think the productivity is any higher. Often it is lower because communication overhead is higher. On the other hand, the willingness to accept diversity allows access to a larger workforce, which means better candidates can be chosen, so there is a competitiveness aspect there. But it doesn't come from diversity per se, but the willingness to hire based on talent rather than similarity to yourself.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and I totally agree with most of the points you stated, and wish most people would give as much thought to the topic as you did, before immediately concluding that immigration = job loss.
Most importantly though, I do wish immigrant workers would be given more freedom of movement since, as you pointed out, they tend to be pretty tied to the company, thus giving companies a great deal of power over employees, which can easily lead to abuse or depression of 'prevailing wages'. I do think though that as a percentage, H1-b applicants, are probably too small a population to effect the prevailing wage (assuming emplyees abuse all of them), This though, is pure speculation by my part.
I would like to point out that legally, someone on an h1-b can change companies assuming they fill the same type of job. Granted, this isn't publicized or practical enough to create true mobility, but it does help give h1-b applicants a chance to leave obviously abusive scenarios.
Finally, I want to readdress the diversity argument. I do believe that most things publicized are a bit of a hogwash. But I do believe a diverse workforce is more productive, but probably more so since it greatly increases the worker pool, than anything else (as opposed to diversity, just for the sake of diversity). Also, it probably allows for filling a position more quickly, and getting productivity out of a worker right away, as opposed to waiting for the correct talented individual.
Joshsc:
The one thing you left out was the statistics on the job market in the UK.
-Dont believe there is a need, I welcome you to search for them yourself, but I have no reason to believe the UK is worst off because of 'highly skilled' (BA +) immigration, which is what h1-bs are.
I welcome you to read the recently released report by NFAP which uses regression analysis to conclude that every h1-b given created about 5 jobs in the US between 2001-2005.
http://www.nfap.net/pdf/080311h1b.pdf
While I do concede the NFAP is hardly an unbaised source, reading the report (am about 25% done atm), I find no dodgy calculations/assumptions, except for the chosen years (i.e. why did they stop at 2001, and not go back further)
And you left out the fact that most in the world want to come to the US to live and work as opposed to the UK.
-Completely true, but I do wish to point out some perspective, The UK has a population of 60mm, with a land mass of 241,000 sq km, where the US has about 300m and 9,100,000 sq km respectively.
Interestingly though, as a percentage of the total population, Canada has 50% more immigrants than the US, and Saudi Arabia has 100% more. In nominal terms, the US does conclusively dominate though. Using Net Migration though- Immigrants per 1000 minus emigrants per 1000, US is ranked 31st in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population
http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/net_migration_rate_2007_0.html
You also left out the security problems in the UK (and other European countries with lax immigration laws) resulting in terrorist bombings and secular group uprisings- Muslims in particular moving into a city and then trying to get that city's laws changed to meet their religious needs.
-Sorry you feel that way, and at the risk of sparking controversy, I find this no different than the current (so far harmless) bombings in NY city, and the current school shootings in the US on the 'terrorist bombing' side. And, no different than say lobby/religious/right-wing groups in the US trying to overturn roe V wad e (abortion), abstinence only education, and the current stance of the US government vs stem-cell research on the 'religious group trying to impose their views' side. I believe everywhere in the world you will find this, but to address your point, I fail to see how the UK is worst off than the US. In fact, with the exception of non-denominational prayer areas in the work-place(which I believe are totally harmless, and are present in the US too), I think religious groups exercise alot more influence over government in the US than in the UK. And the premise that Muslim religious groups are inherently more 'dangerous/unstable' is not only wrong, but just plain offensive.
I'm sorry that your country doesn't have great eduction or jobs, but we have our own problems here in the US and our citizens should come first in jobs and security. Someone else mentioned that the h-1b's coming here to work instead of taking their knowledge back to their home country is better. I disagree. They should take their knowledge back and make their country better. Their economy grows, their education gets higher and our security and job market doesn't suffer.
-I completely agree, but the reality of the world today, is that this cannot immediately occur. Especially with corruption so wide-spread. As technology continues to grow though, Companies will be able to more easily create jobs in other countries, but, I fail to see how this helps the US (or even employees, as different countries have different/looser labor laws), since if I am not working in the US, than I probably wont be paying US taxes on my income, and the jobs I help create would not be US only, but spread around the world.
I do hope we get there some day, as I believe it is a net plus to the whole world, but don't know if it is a net plus to the US. And if the this causes some other area of the world, namely Europe, to become the 'hub of innovation' than it will definitely be a net minus to the US.
I do want to comment on the Nfap article. They make some good points (or at least make me think of them):
1. H1Bs are pretty much gonna be necessary for anybody that wants to work with overseas contacts, for language issues if nothing else
2. Some prestigious high-level positions are such niche jobs that you can't argue they displace anyone
3. IT, science and engineering are low-employment sectors as a percentage of the economy. If you want to build a high-quality team in a short time, you need more applicants than those sectors generally generate in a given country
On the other hand, the majority of the document is a total spin job. In particular, the "complementary nature of H1Bs" they claim, where hiring 1 H1B helps hire 5 Americans (they claim an inflexible relationship between H1Bs are Americans hired), seems to be largely a fabrication. For it to be true, one of the following would likely have to be true:
1. H1Bs are doing fundamentally different things than Americans
-- Except in niche cases like the ones mentioned above, these tend to imply H1Bs as "replacements" at least in specific job categories, which they deny
2. The "high-tech" labor markets are extremely price-elastic. It is not possible to hire a larger number of Americans at a comparable price and skill level.
-- This implies better advertising, more training time allocated, or higher pay are not viable hiring boosters. The stated reasoning is that if hiring prices rise measurably, the job will go overseas.
I suspect much of what they say is true, although they probably overstate it a bit. The best evidence that lack of H1Bs isn't killing them is that the ratio of Americans to non-Americans hired has not changed. I also suspect that in many cases H1Bs are used primarily to avoid hiking wages and to speed hiring time. I don't begrudge these things partially because if the jobs migrate overseas we don't even have the choice whether to compete for them here , but it would be nice if they admitted that avoiding training costs and wage inflation was part of the equation.
But I think the made a pretty good case that H1Bs aren't bringing the world down around our ears, and in that case we should definitely err on the side of promoting greater freedom for everyone. :)
Just to address to clear up my previous comment - yes, H1Bs can change jobs, legally, but it is hardly practical. Especially when you consider the legal fees ~3-5k (from anecdotes). And due to the clause that it 'has to be the same job' its not like its reasonable to expect it to be easy to find a similar job.
Probably due to this, no single person I know with an H1B has actually changed jobs on it, which I believe is both a comment on just how big power employers have over H1B applicants, and the high upfront costs (factor in having to look for only jobs similar/identical to original one) of actually moving jobs.
Secondly, as has been mentioned before, the problem also lies in how difficult it is to become a US Citizen/resident/green card (read: being able to move jobs freely), if one so desires. Process can take over a decade, so while I balk at the 'cheap labor' classification of H1b applicants, I have a relatively easier time swallowing the 'indentured servitude' label.
I venture to say that probably its because of this 'loyalty' that companies can reliably expect from H1b applicants that they may deem them a better investment than a US worker, if only because of the high costs of retraining - costs that can be used elsewhere - i.e. hiring another worker.
-I know I'm basically saying H1b workers are cheaper in the longrun, but hopefully my fine distinction between cheaper/better investment is not too vague or divisive.
Now to the Nfap article. I do believe that their claim of a relationship between H1Bs and Americans hired (1 to 5), though not necesarily for the reasons they use. After reading your comments, I do agree it could have been alot better, and that it does read more like publicity than a study. As is hopefully clear from my comments, I am a big believer that it is largely because of the avoiding of training costs, and fighting off wage inflation that the 1 to 5 ratio they state is achieved, vs their, largely self serving, assumptions.
(I studied econometrics - so apologies if I lose you here)
But while their interpretations may not be the best, I do want to point out on just how difficult it is to find something to be statistically significant, and than to have a number which is so high (5 to 1).
I do wish to insert a few caveat. If you use a small number of independent variables, it does become easier to find something to be statistically significant. In my eyes they used an extremely small number of independent variables (previous year employment, h1b applications, and years {Boolean variable i assume}). But if I gauge the report on how much better I could have made it vs how good it is - it gets a passing grade. Especially if the objective is to see the relationship betweek employment and H1Bs. I cant think of anything I would have done different other than maybe include RealGDP (nominal GDP - which is what everyone cites - is among the most divisive numbers to use ever, just as bad as inflation vs adjusted/real inflation).
As stated before, I question their years chosen, 2001-2005. In the paper they nowhere stated why they didnt go further back, or why they explicitly used these years. A cynical person can easily suspect foul play.
Another point, their R-squared is extremely low too about .07. This along with the small number of variables makes it really hard to take the report too seriously. And, it makes me fear that the 5 to 1 number was reached through complete fabrication. I.e. +1 h1b = +70 jobs - statistically (authors quoted around this was the relationship they found). Than because the Rsquared was 7%, they assumed +1 h1b = +70 * (7%). Which, if this is so - would be a completely incorrect assumption that no economist, or statistician would make (policy makers though...probably not).
Finally - their PDFs have their appendix tables blackened out for me. They made the study on completely publicly available information (i.e. anyone could probably reproduce it - I may even try it myself some day) so, unless this is glitch, I cant easily criticize the assumptions reached from the calculations without seeing the calculations myself!
Finishing off on a complete tangent, below is another study, from another very biased group, but clearly their calculations are easy to see, criticize, and the years used are explained (only years data available), and all in all, a very convincing study. When compared to this, I do fear that the Nfap report is more publicity than study.
http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf
In particular - page 42 - onwards is really interesting.
Best regards,
-Lostpupp
I think we pretty much agree on the points you mention: H1Bs with more freedom attached would be both more moral and better economically than the current system. However, the current system, despite being used as a wage inflation safety valve in many cases (although not all), actually has some benefit to the American worker as well as the employer because of the global nature of the economy. An infinite number of H1Bs might change that equation a bit, but on the first order it seems the harm of H1Bs are smaller than the benefit.
The econometrics are a little bit beyond me at present. I'd have to take some time and get my brother in to look at this see if he could help me with the background there. But I think I can grasp the qualitative side a little better. My main point was that if the statistic the NFAP report mentioned was true, it didn't actually support their sales pitch that well.
I'll definitely read the report you linked to, but it will take me some time to digest.
http://mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=1974
http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/6482
Green cards are being issued to people without even trying to find a U.S. citizen. I have seen this first hand, where Green cards were issued to people in Software Quality assurance (jobs a game tester could do). But if you don't believe me, see the video by the immigration attorneys used by the client of "Compete America":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
A report from the National Accounting Office of the United Stated has found that people on h-1b Visas are regularly being paid 20% less than their U.S. Citizen counterparts.
The h-1b program is being used to out-source U.S. jobs:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/12/business/visa.php?page=2
There is no shortage of qualified technology worker, just a shortage of technology workers are the low-low prices.
With rent in Silicon Valley at typically at 2000$/month, how can a Technology worker live on less than 40k a year? Yet many h-1b visas are issued for far less than this.
http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/4670.html
Check out the following:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2007/db20070208_553356.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17048048/
The typical U.S. citizen is being saddled with 9 trillion dollars in National debt, by the Bush Administration.
Typical U.S. citizen is born with more cost in debt service per year than the wages of your typical Indian programmer.
Gasoline prices are going the roof. Because of Corporate lobbying groups.
And the lobbying group "Compete America" is crass euphemism (double-speak) for the continuing fire sale that is destroying the U.S. economy.
http://mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=1974
Everything else is just whining from an anti-immigrant.
I am a beneficiary of H1-B, but the scam and abuse of the program is outright sick.
-
by chash360
March 10, 2008 6:06 PM PDT
- I have seen many local IT tech workers get replaced with H1B's, they are not particularly skilled, they are not PhD's. Just ordinary IT labor performing the same work that was filled by local IT employees just 2-3 years ago. Many of the displaced local workers are still looking for jobs.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 48 Comments >>Even if they are paid fair wages locally, how much of that do they send home (out of the country) and therefore out of our economy?
If you want more skilled labor, you have to pay for it, one way or another. These big companies should invest in seed programs a stateside universities, if they need specific talent, and pay decent wages. Importing cheap labor does not do America any good.
The only time H1B's etc should even be considered is when you want to get a specific person of renown to work in the states. (where its the person, not just the skills)
Any EC big wig, who says they can't find the talent here in America and needs more H1B's, does know what talent is, nor do they want to pay a fair wage for it.
Sorry if I offend any H1B's out there that are truly high level talent, but you are the minority of the H1B pool, and you probably did not really need the H1B program anyway, if you truly have the credentials. If you have a recognized PhD, and are in such demand etc. you could write your own ticket for anywhere in the world.