Silicon Valley frets over foreign worker crackdown(ft.com)
ft.com
Silicon Valley frets over foreign worker crackdown
https://www.ft.com/content/b42f40c2-a6df-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1
69 comments
>Does SV really rely on undocumented workers for their skilled labor force?
Of course not. The idea that Trump's election would be detrimental to Silicon Valley was a fear mongering tactic promulgated by left-leaning tech luminaries. Say what you will about his other stances, but all signs point to a very pro-business administration.
I'm more worried about business interruptions coming as a result of the holy war that some ultra-liberals have unleashed on anyone that they view as responsible for not getting their way in the election than I am about Trump interfering with any aspect of American business. The Grubhub incident was truly disturbing, and several people have publicly said they would cut Peter Thiel out of deals specifically because of his political beliefs. It seems that Democrats stress tolerance, except when they have to tolerate anyone that disagrees with them.
Of course not. The idea that Trump's election would be detrimental to Silicon Valley was a fear mongering tactic promulgated by left-leaning tech luminaries. Say what you will about his other stances, but all signs point to a very pro-business administration.
I'm more worried about business interruptions coming as a result of the holy war that some ultra-liberals have unleashed on anyone that they view as responsible for not getting their way in the election than I am about Trump interfering with any aspect of American business. The Grubhub incident was truly disturbing, and several people have publicly said they would cut Peter Thiel out of deals specifically because of his political beliefs. It seems that Democrats stress tolerance, except when they have to tolerate anyone that disagrees with them.
"The Grubhub incident was truly disturbing"
Are you referring to the CEO e-mail? [1]
"While demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior - and these views, have no place at Grubhub. Had he worked here, many of his comments would have resulted in his immediate termination."
Sounds like standard HR policy to me.
[1] http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...
Are you referring to the CEO e-mail? [1]
"While demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior - and these views, have no place at Grubhub. Had he worked here, many of his comments would have resulted in his immediate termination."
Sounds like standard HR policy to me.
[1] http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...
I'm not going to split hairs with you or any other liberal defender of this type of behavior. Whether you will admit it or not, you, as well as everyone else that read the entire email, understand that he was lashing out at and threatening anyone who voted for Trump. He intentionally tried to create a hostile work environment for half of his employees. Grubhub should (and undoubtedly will) be sued, probably not only by employees but also by shareholders that incurred losses as a result of the fallout from this monumentally stupid action.
This email, and all attempts to defend it, are far worse than anything that Trump has allegedly said or implied. This is an attack on democracy itself.
This email, and all attempts to defend it, are far worse than anything that Trump has allegedly said or implied. This is an attack on democracy itself.
> half of his employees.
Probably a lot less than half (which lack of diversity is itself part of the problem).
Probably a lot less than half (which lack of diversity is itself part of the problem).
Wait, I fail to understand how refusing to hire or associate with bigots is an assault on democracy.
It seems to me this is the free market in action. Your labor is worth so much less as a bigot that you are unemployable. Tough shit.
Unless you want to add political beliefs to "protected classes". But it was my understanding that conservatives don't think the government should be involved in mandating voluntary associations.
It seems to me this is the free market in action. Your labor is worth so much less as a bigot that you are unemployable. Tough shit.
Unless you want to add political beliefs to "protected classes". But it was my understanding that conservatives don't think the government should be involved in mandating voluntary associations.
So the 60,265,858 people that voted for Trump are all bigots and could have had no other reason to vote for him. Got it.
No, while I suspect that many of the people who voted for Trump did so out of bigotry, some I assume are good people.
And the email did not say to resign if you supported Trump, it said to resign if you would engage in bigoted acts. "demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled" is how those acts were specified. And frankly, if that's how you're going to behave, then you have no place in any organization.
And the email did not say to resign if you supported Trump, it said to resign if you would engage in bigoted acts. "demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled" is how those acts were specified. And frankly, if that's how you're going to behave, then you have no place in any organization.
Again, I won't split hairs on this. Since you were intelligent enough to turn on your computer and type this response, you know perfectly well what that email was saying. You are arguing because that's what liberals do when they're caught red-handed doing something very, very wrong.
Pertinent parts of the email:
"... I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can......If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here".
Pertinent parts of the email:
"... I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can......If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here".
"If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here."
So, if you don't agree with what he said about Trump was true, you should leave.
And, yes, that is only one possible interpretation of that sentence. It was not specific enough.
If he's talking about whether people agree that the workplace should not be hostile, that's another thing.
It's too bad he felt the need to inject politics and the threat into this statement. He could have just stated the company policy and ask workers to see HR if they had a problem with it.
So, if you don't agree with what he said about Trump was true, you should leave.
And, yes, that is only one possible interpretation of that sentence. It was not specific enough.
If he's talking about whether people agree that the workplace should not be hostile, that's another thing.
It's too bad he felt the need to inject politics and the threat into this statement. He could have just stated the company policy and ask workers to see HR if they had a problem with it.
There's one issue in Trump's current ideas: That he wants to "punish" countries that don't take back illegal immigrants by limiting visa access to their citizens.
So if the Trump administration at some point considers Liechtenstein to be not in compliance with Trump's ideas of handling illegal immigrants, fully compliant H1-Bs from Liechtenstein might get in trouble the next time they need to renew their paperwork.
So if the Trump administration at some point considers Liechtenstein to be not in compliance with Trump's ideas of handling illegal immigrants, fully compliant H1-Bs from Liechtenstein might get in trouble the next time they need to renew their paperwork.
Is that really an issue? Why would Liechtenstein refuse to take back one of their citizens?
I believe Liechtenstein was chosen for rhetorical purposes.
Yes, fill in whatever country name you want. Most H-1Bs go to India, so use that as an example. Why wouldn't India take back deported citizens?
I'd say that most countries would be happy to not have to take back their nationals that have committed violent felonies.
For a specific example, Vietnam refuses to take back their nationals who entered after 12 July 1995. We recently had a case regarding Viet national in the US illegally who, upon serving that sentence, was released among the US public because he had originally entered the US illegally before that 1995 date, and Vietnam refused to allow him back in.
He went on to commit another homicide this year.
For a specific example, Vietnam refuses to take back their nationals who entered after 12 July 1995. We recently had a case regarding Viet national in the US illegally who, upon serving that sentence, was released among the US public because he had originally entered the US illegally before that 1995 date, and Vietnam refused to allow him back in.
He went on to commit another homicide this year.
The question is not if India takes back deported citizens, but if they do it according to whatever rules the US sets up:
- The country is too slow in taking back people, which is entirely possible when the plan to deport 3 million people is implemented.
- Especially for "illegal immigrants", it's sometimes hard to pinpoint their actual nationality (and they might not be honest about it for whatever reasons). So they claim to be from India, but the Indian Embassy claims that they're definitely not Indian but given their accent may be from Sri Lanka (and so refuse to take them back). Sri Lanka doesn't want anything to do with that person either. Now what?
Neither of these need to happen, but these are issues completely outside the control of law-abiding visa holders that may soon be hanging over their heads.
- The country is too slow in taking back people, which is entirely possible when the plan to deport 3 million people is implemented.
- Especially for "illegal immigrants", it's sometimes hard to pinpoint their actual nationality (and they might not be honest about it for whatever reasons). So they claim to be from India, but the Indian Embassy claims that they're definitely not Indian but given their accent may be from Sri Lanka (and so refuse to take them back). Sri Lanka doesn't want anything to do with that person either. Now what?
Neither of these need to happen, but these are issues completely outside the control of law-abiding visa holders that may soon be hanging over their heads.
This seems like an odd way to "punish" countries. Most countries would probably be quite happy that the US was stopping the brain drain from their country.
If they did care about such things, they'd institute exit visas, if they wanted. So if they care, they don't care enough to do that.
But, since they aren't, and if you are right, I guess Trump will be doing right by most countries, since in your account he'd be deporting their brain drain.
But, since they aren't, and if you are right, I guess Trump will be doing right by most countries, since in your account he'd be deporting their brain drain.
""punish" countries that don't take back illegal immigrants by limiting visa access to their citizens."
Astute reasoning.
Astute reasoning.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rely on undocumented workers: probably not, but subcontractors maybe?
What's going to happen to legal immigration: nobody knows. Trump has said a lot of things, and by the time a bill gets through Congress, it may be very different.
Your line of reasoning is one of many plausible scenarios.
What's going to happen to legal immigration: nobody knows. Trump has said a lot of things, and by the time a bill gets through Congress, it may be very different.
Your line of reasoning is one of many plausible scenarios.
But the headline "Newly elected President says he'll enforce the law" isn't nearly as provocative and scary.
This is one of those laws that's kind of like speeding in cars. To actually enforce it 100% of the time would require the sort of enforcement that people would not be very happy with. With immigration, it'd mean living in a "papers, please" kind of country. The best way to deal with immigration is to make it cheap, legal and easy for people who just want to work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/business/economy/if-immigr...
No one would walk miles through the Arizona desert if it were easy to do things legitimately - the only people sneaking around would be actual criminals.
And of course this one is a classic:
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/business/economy/if-immigr...
No one would walk miles through the Arizona desert if it were easy to do things legitimately - the only people sneaking around would be actual criminals.
And of course this one is a classic:
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
That's the thing, you don't have to enforce any law 100%.
You start enforcing it for the most egregious cases and others get a little more hesitant to break the law. Then you do it again and more back off. At some point, you reach a happy medium where there's "enough" enforcement that egregious cases are rare and punished heavily while the rest aren't worth punishing.
Yes, just like speeding.
You start enforcing it for the most egregious cases and others get a little more hesitant to break the law. Then you do it again and more back off. At some point, you reach a happy medium where there's "enough" enforcement that egregious cases are rare and punished heavily while the rest aren't worth punishing.
Yes, just like speeding.
I don't think so. Other countries don't have a problem enforcing their immigration policies. When someone is found to be overstaying they deport them. Try overstaying in Japan, China, Greece, France, etc. They may not get 100%, but they get a good percentage as companies are required to vet the work status of employees and regular police in many places can inquire about visas, if they have reason to ask.
They have plenty of trouble keeping 0% illegal immigrants. It's not possible in a free society.
Greece, however is a good point: if you make your economy bad enough, no one will want to go there. This worked for the US during the recent recession.
Greece, however is a good point: if you make your economy bad enough, no one will want to go there. This worked for the US during the recent recession.
I'd like to live in a Papers, please kind of country if it means competition for my field of work is drastically thinned.
Hell, I'd help the law with tips myself if it meant companies would be forced to increase wages as the market forces shake to accommodate decreased supply.
Hell, I'd help the law with tips myself if it meant companies would be forced to increase wages as the market forces shake to accommodate decreased supply.
It's like saying that you'd be fine with total surveillance, because you personally have nothing illegal to hide.
This idea would work in a world where both malevolence and all kinds of errors do not exist. Ours is, unfortunately, different.
This idea would work in a world where both malevolence and all kinds of errors do not exist. Ours is, unfortunately, different.
That might be the most short-sighted perspective I've seen in a HN comment this week.
I'm aghast at what I'm reading. You'd live in a police state if it meant more money for you?
The US immigration is incredibly byzantine and opaque, far beyond what most Americans realize. Trump has said that he thinks the H-1B program is being abused, and the fear is that there will be yet another layer of bureaucracy layered on top of what is already there.
It is not uncommon for immigrants to work 20+ years in the US before they can become citizens, always facing the prospect that unemployment or sickness means they have to be out of the country in as little as 10 days.
It is not uncommon for immigrants to work 20+ years in the US before they can become citizens, always facing the prospect that unemployment or sickness means they have to be out of the country in as little as 10 days.
Here's the full Kenneth Galbraith reference:
He ridiculed the Reaganite trickle-down theory of wealth distribution, preferring the earthier phrase "the horse-and-sparrow theory" - "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
From this interesting (long) overview of Galbraith's life and work: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/apr/06/socialscie...
He ridiculed the Reaganite trickle-down theory of wealth distribution, preferring the earthier phrase "the horse-and-sparrow theory" - "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
From this interesting (long) overview of Galbraith's life and work: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/apr/06/socialscie...
Here's a disruptive idea for SV, open field offices in tech hubs that are all over the country, pay lower salary, get the same employees you would have moved out to SV anyway.
(I know more than one person who works in SF/SV and works literally in the same department as half a dozen other people from their home cities, all moved out to SF and given enormous pay differentials to live there).
(I know more than one person who works in SF/SV and works literally in the same department as half a dozen other people from their home cities, all moved out to SF and given enormous pay differentials to live there).
Silicon Valley companies are s small percentage of the H1-B pool.
Focusing on the 10-15% of H1B's is not doing this issue justice, in my opinion. Wipro, Cognizant, Infosys and TCS are not Silicon Valley startups.
Focusing on the 10-15% of H1B's is not doing this issue justice, in my opinion. Wipro, Cognizant, Infosys and TCS are not Silicon Valley startups.
Case in point, his stated policy is the "Intel yes, Infosys no" one.
However, how much do Silicon Valley startups eventually hire from the Infosys etc. pool of H1-Bs?
Old line Silicon Valley companies like HP are notorious for doing this, although as I recall they've been cluefull enough to avoid the "train your own replacement" PR debacles that are most recently driving this, those are in companies where "IT" is a cost center, like that California electrical company and Disney.
However, how much do Silicon Valley startups eventually hire from the Infosys etc. pool of H1-Bs?
Old line Silicon Valley companies like HP are notorious for doing this, although as I recall they've been cluefull enough to avoid the "train your own replacement" PR debacles that are most recently driving this, those are in companies where "IT" is a cost center, like that California electrical company and Disney.
Oh look, yet another article talking about how our leading tech companies (aka "Silicon Valley") can't hire fast enough with an infographic clearly showing that the "highly skilled guest worker" visas are predominantly going to IT body shops (aka "not Silicon Valley"), the "H1-Bs on average make less" mostly being due to the same body shops, and no mention at all within the body of the article that this is the case. It should be obvious to anyone with even limited reasoning ability that the system is is not being used in the spirit* it was created in and that there are possible fixes that don't land at one of the extremes of close it down or leave it (mostly) wide open.
(*or for the cynically inclined, replace "spirit" with "stated purpose")
(*or for the cynically inclined, replace "spirit" with "stated purpose")
In fact cracking down on H1-B should be GOOD for silicon valley. As it will open a lot more slots for legit companies applying for real talent.
I'm confused, how is a company who hires H1-B visa holders "illegitimate"? Maybe I'm taking this too literally...
Not the OP, but I read it meaning "companies applying with a legitimate need for talent". Here are few examples from the past few months where this was not the case:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/couple-pleads-guilty-20...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/virginia-immigration-atto...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/couple-pleads-guilty-20...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/virginia-immigration-atto...
I don't have a problem with hiring workers from outside the country. My problem is when you lay off American workers and replace them with cheap foreign labor, while claiming you're doing so because you can't find qualified workers. That smacks of Silicon Valley doublespeak, and it's grossly unfair.
Increasing the supply of workers will ALWAYS drive down cost. So you can debate the minutia, but that is the trade off we make.
Lawyers and doctors have strong "guild" protections to stop overseas labor competing. Software devs do not.
Lawyers and doctors have strong "guild" protections to stop overseas labor competing. Software devs do not.
If all Software Developers had to pay their own E&O insurance and warrant the quality of their work, then a comparison could possibly be drawn to Doctor/Lawyer professions.
If a Software Developer serves the public, you bet your ass they have E&O.
> Increasing the supply of workers will ALWAYS drive down cost.
Not necessarily. This is only true for companies where minimizing the cost is the best (sometimes only) strategy to increase profits. Tata, EDS, Accenture, and the many IT body shops are all in this camp.
For the so-called "SV tech companies", they need a steady supply of talents to continue creating products that in turn generate new revenue streams. This is much more valuable than saving 30% off in an individual's compensation -- at the expense of high turnover, when said worker realizes he/she is being underpaid.
Artificially reducing an already dwindling supply of talents in the top tech hubs won't make salaries go up; it will simply shift the jobs elsewhere. That is already happening for many companies.
Not necessarily. This is only true for companies where minimizing the cost is the best (sometimes only) strategy to increase profits. Tata, EDS, Accenture, and the many IT body shops are all in this camp.
For the so-called "SV tech companies", they need a steady supply of talents to continue creating products that in turn generate new revenue streams. This is much more valuable than saving 30% off in an individual's compensation -- at the expense of high turnover, when said worker realizes he/she is being underpaid.
Artificially reducing an already dwindling supply of talents in the top tech hubs won't make salaries go up; it will simply shift the jobs elsewhere. That is already happening for many companies.
> This is only true for companies where minimizing the cost is the best (sometimes only) strategy to increase profits. Tata, EDS, Accenture, and the many IT body shops are all in this camp.
It's true for any company. Did we forget about the Silicon Valley wage fixing already?
> This is much more valuable than saving 30% off in an individual's compensation -- at the expense of high turnover, when said worker realizes he/she is being underpaid.
That's the entire point, if you underpay, you get high turnover. But what is considered underpaying is relative to the market rates. And if you get more supply, market rates drop.
As an example, interns at Google in the US earn about $7000 a month, while in London they get about £2000. That's because of market rates in London are far lower than in the US. Ideally, tech companies in Silicon Valley would really love it if they could have the same employees as they do now for half the price.
It's true for any company. Did we forget about the Silicon Valley wage fixing already?
> This is much more valuable than saving 30% off in an individual's compensation -- at the expense of high turnover, when said worker realizes he/she is being underpaid.
That's the entire point, if you underpay, you get high turnover. But what is considered underpaying is relative to the market rates. And if you get more supply, market rates drop.
As an example, interns at Google in the US earn about $7000 a month, while in London they get about £2000. That's because of market rates in London are far lower than in the US. Ideally, tech companies in Silicon Valley would really love it if they could have the same employees as they do now for half the price.
> As an example, interns at Google in the US earn about $7000 a month, while in London they get about £2000. That's because of market rates in London are far lower than in the US. Ideally, tech companies in Silicon Valley would really love it if they could have the same employees as they do now for half the price.
Just speculating, but I imagine for Google the real estate cost of moving their headquarters to London would far outweigh the small amount they'd save on labor.
Just speculating, but I imagine for Google the real estate cost of moving their headquarters to London would far outweigh the small amount they'd save on labor.
I seriously doubt it. Is London even more expensive than Mountain View? They could also move to a different european city, wages are low everywhere in Europe. Ironically, the largest engineering site of Google in Europe is Zurich, where employees are as expensive as in Silicon Valley.
Google has about 40000 engineers. If they paid $70k less per year per engineer (median total compensation for a Google engineer is probably around $200k), that's a saving of about $3 bilion a year.
I cannot understand why so few US companies open engineering sites in Europe, and when they do, they are much smaller than in the US. It's really easy to get good engineers in Europe.
Google has about 40000 engineers. If they paid $70k less per year per engineer (median total compensation for a Google engineer is probably around $200k), that's a saving of about $3 bilion a year.
I cannot understand why so few US companies open engineering sites in Europe, and when they do, they are much smaller than in the US. It's really easy to get good engineers in Europe.
I too have wondered this. If all else is equal, why wouldn't Google and Microsoft and the other tech giants get founded in Europe for less money and more profit? What is the secret sauce that makes SV work?
I think companies in Europe pay a lot in compensation that doesn't show up as salary. E.g. pension contributions, longer vacation, higher payroll taxes.
So while there appears to be a large salary gap, the total cost to employ someone isn't quite as divergent.
So while there appears to be a large salary gap, the total cost to employ someone isn't quite as divergent.
> Lawyers and doctors have strong "guild" protections to stop overseas labor competing.
I'd be interested in reading more about this if you have a link handy.
I'd be interested in reading more about this if you have a link handy.
It really isn't that complicated. To be a lawyer or a doctor you need to be licensed. The number of people who are licensed is restricted because of the limited numbers of spots in medical and law schools and the high cost of attending. On the already trained immigrant side, you can't just show up from India and start practicing law or medicine in the US. Even if you did it in your home country and are unquestionably qualified there is a long process you have to go through.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog...
Professional associations like the AMA (American Medical Association) for doctors and American Bar Association for Lawyers act as de facto unions w/o drawing the negative connotations that unions sometimes do in modern politics. The AMA even lobbies the government which sets the rates doctors get paid for medicare procedures and medicare is the largest payer in the healthcare system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog...
Professional associations like the AMA (American Medical Association) for doctors and American Bar Association for Lawyers act as de facto unions w/o drawing the negative connotations that unions sometimes do in modern politics. The AMA even lobbies the government which sets the rates doctors get paid for medicare procedures and medicare is the largest payer in the healthcare system.
> The number of people who are licensed is restricted because of the limited numbers of spots in medical and law schools and the high cost of attending
For medicine, this is wrong. The bottleneck is residency programs, not medical school. We graduate more medical students each year than we have residency spots available.
And for residency programs, the limit isn't artificial - it's funding-driven. Residency programs run at a loss for hospitals, so most residency programs are funded through Medicare.
> Even if you did it in your home country and are unquestionably qualified there is a long process you have to go through.
Yes, and that's not to artificially limit the supply, but because training differs by country, and just because you're qualified by one country's standards doesn't mean you're qualified by another. And for what it's worth, the residency process is oftentimes much shorter for people who are licensed to practice in other countries, so it's not like they're starting from scratch.
> Professional associations like the AMA (American Medical Association)... act as de facto unions w/o drawing the negative connotations that unions sometimes do in modern politics.
The AMA may be the most-hated organization in the medical field. People who don't practice medicine hate the AMA, largely because they aren't clear on what the AMA is and is not responsible for, and often misattibute things to the AMA[0]. And practitioners hate the AMA because they are actually aware of what it does, and because the AMA has a long history of siding with payers (insurers) over practitioners.
> The AMA even lobbies the government which sets the rates doctors get paid for medicare procedures and medicare is the largest payer in the healthcare system.
If you think the role of the AMA is to ensure doctors get paid well by Medicare, then they're clearly not doing their job. Medicare reimburses, in the aggregate, 7% less than COGS. This means that, in effect, for every Medicare patient a private practitioner treats, they would end up having to provide their services for free, and then still pay an additional 7% out-of-pocket for each Medicare patient they treat, to cover the costs that Medicare doesn't.
This is the reason that private practices are a dying breed, and why it's actually very difficult to find small practices which will accept "vanilla" Medicare.
[0] For example, people often blame the AMA for limiting the number of medical school spots that are available, which is wrong on three counts: (1) The AAMC was responsible for this, not the AMA, (2) The AAMC has changed their policy and is now aggressively lifting this cap year upon year for a long time now, and (3) as I explained above, the number of medical school graduates isn't the bottleneck, so the AAMC's policy has no effect on the supply of doctors entering the market each year.
For medicine, this is wrong. The bottleneck is residency programs, not medical school. We graduate more medical students each year than we have residency spots available.
And for residency programs, the limit isn't artificial - it's funding-driven. Residency programs run at a loss for hospitals, so most residency programs are funded through Medicare.
> Even if you did it in your home country and are unquestionably qualified there is a long process you have to go through.
Yes, and that's not to artificially limit the supply, but because training differs by country, and just because you're qualified by one country's standards doesn't mean you're qualified by another. And for what it's worth, the residency process is oftentimes much shorter for people who are licensed to practice in other countries, so it's not like they're starting from scratch.
> Professional associations like the AMA (American Medical Association)... act as de facto unions w/o drawing the negative connotations that unions sometimes do in modern politics.
The AMA may be the most-hated organization in the medical field. People who don't practice medicine hate the AMA, largely because they aren't clear on what the AMA is and is not responsible for, and often misattibute things to the AMA[0]. And practitioners hate the AMA because they are actually aware of what it does, and because the AMA has a long history of siding with payers (insurers) over practitioners.
> The AMA even lobbies the government which sets the rates doctors get paid for medicare procedures and medicare is the largest payer in the healthcare system.
If you think the role of the AMA is to ensure doctors get paid well by Medicare, then they're clearly not doing their job. Medicare reimburses, in the aggregate, 7% less than COGS. This means that, in effect, for every Medicare patient a private practitioner treats, they would end up having to provide their services for free, and then still pay an additional 7% out-of-pocket for each Medicare patient they treat, to cover the costs that Medicare doesn't.
This is the reason that private practices are a dying breed, and why it's actually very difficult to find small practices which will accept "vanilla" Medicare.
[0] For example, people often blame the AMA for limiting the number of medical school spots that are available, which is wrong on three counts: (1) The AAMC was responsible for this, not the AMA, (2) The AAMC has changed their policy and is now aggressively lifting this cap year upon year for a long time now, and (3) as I explained above, the number of medical school graduates isn't the bottleneck, so the AAMC's policy has no effect on the supply of doctors entering the market each year.
Whether or not the intent was to artificially limit the supply the effect is the same. Barriers to entry prevent an influx of labor from pushing the price down.
Here is an article from fortune on the AMA...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-docto...
Here is an article from fortune on the AMA...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-docto...
Probably meant being admitted to the bar (for lawyers) or having a medical license (for doctors). You can't perform those professions without the right credentials.
It's generally true but there are counterexamples. For starters, in most of the world, 15 years ago computer programming was something geeks did while the rest of people were building real careers involving oversight of buying and selling stuff.
Fast forward today, programmers rake serious money getting better than average salaries, in some places several times more than peer salaries. But supply also increased several times. It's just that demand increased faster. I think that if supply would fail to increase we'll see smaller wages today as the market will fail to evolve.
Fast forward today, programmers rake serious money getting better than average salaries, in some places several times more than peer salaries. But supply also increased several times. It's just that demand increased faster. I think that if supply would fail to increase we'll see smaller wages today as the market will fail to evolve.
There may be a paywall issue. Can someone please post another related story?
Paste the URL into Google and enter from there.
And in the Google search results, open it in an incognito/private window. This gets asked in comments for pretty much every FT/WSJ/whatever article.
A bad choice. A more appropriate choice would be a hellhole like Mexico.
Slurs like this are a bannable offense on Hacker News. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12940754 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12940754 and marked it off-topic.
Why purposefully inflame the discussion? I suspect that's exactly why that choice was made.
If there is wage manipulation via H1-Bs, it's because there's a pressure on the candidate to accept a lower salary, knowing it's the only way to get into the US to work. As I see it, raising that cap removes the employer's leverage to push for a lower wage.
You think the pool of available talent to replace all those H1Bs is large enough to do it before many tech companies implode or start outsourcing?
The best argument for the H-1B is that the jobs would go to the same employee anyway, just back in their home country, but there is probably a sweet spot where you aren't actually incentivizing dumping current US workers and replacing them with H-1Bs.
Not sure I understand you - my point is if you allow twice as many H-1Bs things would get better. Don't see where replacing H-1Bs comes into it?
Of course, that remains to be seen but, at the same time, I don't believe the intention is to cut off all immigration, only illegal unregulated immigration, the way most advanced economies do.