Denial of H1-B visas to India’s largest IT services exporters at all-time high(economictimes.indiatimes.com)
economictimes.indiatimes.com
Denial of H1-B visas to India’s largest IT services exporters at all-time high
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/h-1b-visa-denials-at-all-time-high/articleshow/70613732.cms
383 comments
Note that this data was just from 4 of the giant Indian IT outsourcers (e.g. Infosys, Tata Consulting, Wipro), who were basically the worst abusers of the H-1B system. I'm interested to know what the rate is for smaller companies and US-based companies.
Yeah, this is important context. Even as a previous H1B holder myself I see any increase in refusals to companies like Infosys to be a good thing, they're renowned for their abuse of the system. The other feedback we see in this thread that smaller companies are struggling to hire, however... not good.
But lots of that feedback rounds up to "we pay way less than the tech majors and for unfathomable reasons, aren't competitive." I'm a startup founder, and we can't compete head-on for talent. We have to hire people who don't want a FAANG, or whom the FAANGs don't want. Fortunately, there's actually broad classes of both. But they often didn't go to Stanford...
That’s why startups compete with equity for FAANG-types.
If you have offered sizeable equity packages (and have a nice office (or cushy remote benefits) and decent modern tech stack) then even the most boring startups can attract the best - so what is your company doing?
If you have offered sizeable equity packages (and have a nice office (or cushy remote benefits) and decent modern tech stack) then even the most boring startups can attract the best - so what is your company doing?
Yes, equity vs. cash was the "normal" startup calculus, but FAANG type companies have been paying SO much over the past decade (largely because their stocks have done so well over the past decade that "reasonable" equity awards ended up being 3, 4, 500k or more annually for mid/senior level devs) that it largely threw that calculus out of whack. These days, even if a startup "hits" (still a remote prospect) you're only doing slightly better than if you had a FAANG as one of your options, and if the startup doesn't hit, you're easily way, way down.
These days, while compensation and equity are of course important, there are other things (e.g. get to work on a wide array of stuff, no "big company" crap, etc.) that are likely going to be the real drivers in being able to attract talent.
These days, while compensation and equity are of course important, there are other things (e.g. get to work on a wide array of stuff, no "big company" crap, etc.) that are likely going to be the real drivers in being able to attract talent.
Well, I still see offers of less than 0.1% stock to the first 20 or even first 10 engineering hires, so I think we shouldn't pretend that startups are doing all they can to compete with offers from FAANG. If the stock compensation was more like 1-2% for the first couple engineering hires, 0.5-1% for the next couple, 0.3-0.5% until 10-15 hires, then the stock compensation would probably start to compete with FAANG even after factoring in the possibility of the startups going bust. So about 10% of stock would go to the first 20 engineers, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. Unfortunately it seems founders want to keep that to more like 2-3% total, and that's why they can't attract talent in my opinion.
Also, TERMS of the stock grants also matter. For example, if the options can be held for 10 years after departure from the company, that would make them more valuable. For the first 1-5 hires it may not make a difference because they'd probably do an 83b and buy all their stock right away, but for the next 5-15 hires the Series A price may still mean they'd need to put several or tens of thousands into their options, which not everyone can do.
Startups could also attract talent by offering atypical work hours (not arriving during rush hour traffic would be nice) or many other things, but they typically aren't willing to do that... for whatever reason. I've personally offered to work at startups in the evening for about 50% of my hourly-equivalent rate for 20 hours per week (so 1/4 of a salary for 1/2 of an employee), and they've not been interested. Until companies are willing to be unconventional to attract talent, I say the cries of "talent shortage" are not genuine. If there was a shortage, they'd be willing to be more flexible than most of them are.
Also, TERMS of the stock grants also matter. For example, if the options can be held for 10 years after departure from the company, that would make them more valuable. For the first 1-5 hires it may not make a difference because they'd probably do an 83b and buy all their stock right away, but for the next 5-15 hires the Series A price may still mean they'd need to put several or tens of thousands into their options, which not everyone can do.
Startups could also attract talent by offering atypical work hours (not arriving during rush hour traffic would be nice) or many other things, but they typically aren't willing to do that... for whatever reason. I've personally offered to work at startups in the evening for about 50% of my hourly-equivalent rate for 20 hours per week (so 1/4 of a salary for 1/2 of an employee), and they've not been interested. Until companies are willing to be unconventional to attract talent, I say the cries of "talent shortage" are not genuine. If there was a shortage, they'd be willing to be more flexible than most of them are.
> I've personally offered to work at startups in the evening for about 50% of my hourly-equivalent rate for 20 hours per week (so 1/4 of a salary for 1/2 of an employee), and they've not been interested.
I don't know what your role is, but I can understand why they aren't interested. If you're only willing to work at off hours, remotely, then it's highly likely they could get someone as good or better, more cheaply, by getting remote offshore talent (I worked with some great offshore devs in Brazil and Eastern Europe, for example).
In other words, if you've eliminated any advantage you would bring to the company as a local or US-based developer (assuming you're in the US), then your salary comps are now global developer salaries, not California salaries or wherever else you may live.
I don't know what your role is, but I can understand why they aren't interested. If you're only willing to work at off hours, remotely, then it's highly likely they could get someone as good or better, more cheaply, by getting remote offshore talent (I worked with some great offshore devs in Brazil and Eastern Europe, for example).
In other words, if you've eliminated any advantage you would bring to the company as a local or US-based developer (assuming you're in the US), then your salary comps are now global developer salaries, not California salaries or wherever else you may live.
I'm a very senior engineer, and I was actually offering to work off hours but on site.
Well so this kind of seems like a copout to me. I work for a big company that pays really well (on all fronts) and I have worked in startups that tried following the E vs C calculus. I am also part of the HC at said big companies so I see a lot of factors in hiring and I regularly "hobby" interview at a lot of companies to see what is out there.
Problem is the "big company" stuff you are mentioning is no longer limited to big companies. I see the unicorns of the world trying to act like big companies from mimicking org structures to leetcode puzzles in interviews to downlevelling (our Level N is Level N + k at BigCo X). All this while asking candidates to slog it out for 10+ years before their quantum money is worth something tangible. Equally BigCos for what they are worth are extremely alluring by ensuring one does not live perpetually on ramen and BigCos also do a lot of things so you can move around reasonably (sure not as fluidly). Additionally given BigCos (at least the one I am in) value diversity and collaboration a lot the "bigco"ness is getting more and more of a strawman argument!
What would be ideal for me is startups of say 5-10 folks with roughly similar skill levels (and hence equity) with a really decent shot at a successful exit in a 2-4 year time frame. Where do you find these that are happy with such an exit instead of trying to become a unicorn and not stop until they take over the world by any means necessary?
Problem is the "big company" stuff you are mentioning is no longer limited to big companies. I see the unicorns of the world trying to act like big companies from mimicking org structures to leetcode puzzles in interviews to downlevelling (our Level N is Level N + k at BigCo X). All this while asking candidates to slog it out for 10+ years before their quantum money is worth something tangible. Equally BigCos for what they are worth are extremely alluring by ensuring one does not live perpetually on ramen and BigCos also do a lot of things so you can move around reasonably (sure not as fluidly). Additionally given BigCos (at least the one I am in) value diversity and collaboration a lot the "bigco"ness is getting more and more of a strawman argument!
What would be ideal for me is startups of say 5-10 folks with roughly similar skill levels (and hence equity) with a really decent shot at a successful exit in a 2-4 year time frame. Where do you find these that are happy with such an exit instead of trying to become a unicorn and not stop until they take over the world by any means necessary?
> That’s why startups compete with equity for FAANG-types.
Aka, paper money, that you have less than 1% of getting. Even if startup doesn't go bust, things like liquidation preferences will screw people unless they're VC or founders.
Startup stock grants are exciting mostly to people new to the SV. If you've been here for a while, you know how badly cards are rigged against engineers.
Aka, paper money, that you have less than 1% of getting. Even if startup doesn't go bust, things like liquidation preferences will screw people unless they're VC or founders.
Startup stock grants are exciting mostly to people new to the SV. If you've been here for a while, you know how badly cards are rigged against engineers.
Yeah before founders started screwing employees by doing exactly what you said it was an option. Equal risk for high reward. Now it's higher risk for the employee for almost no guarantee of reward and a bait and switch at the last moment. My last two startups one paid out a whopping $0 for stock and the other went under.
Personally, I all but ignore equity in a startup job offer. Experience has taught me it'll either be worth absolutely nothing or be worth the equivalent of a yearly bonus at an established company. It simply isn't a big draw.
That is not my experience, nor the experience of most startups in sfbay.
For instance: only a fool would think that a $500k equity package, based on eg a 409a evaluation, is anything like a $500k equity grant at a FAANG. Because the latter is cash and the former is lottery tickets.
For instance: only a fool would think that a $500k equity package, based on eg a 409a evaluation, is anything like a $500k equity grant at a FAANG. Because the latter is cash and the former is lottery tickets.
A dollar valuation is bollocks, yes - but a percentage stake of a company valued at 5-10m of (I.e. small-fry) when it gets sold-out to Cisco / Apple / Facebook is not.
Percentage stake is also a bollock. Liquidation preference makes selling out good business for VCs. Sometimes founders if they're smart. And engineers are lucky to get anything at all.
I highly recommend anyone working in startup world to learn more about how it works in details, and understand how their companies deal with it.
You can own 1% of company that's sold for $100M and get $0. And it's all perfectly legal.
I highly recommend anyone working in startup world to learn more about how it works in details, and understand how their companies deal with it.
You can own 1% of company that's sold for $100M and get $0. And it's all perfectly legal.
Sure, don't offer a poor equity package - but a startup cannot guarantee that their options will ever be worth much, while those FANG RSUs are basically cash. Unless you’re a founder, equity is a scarce resource which needs to be used to make good hires over a large number of years - it’s a zero-sum game. Offer too much equity to early hires and you’ll have a hard time attracting late hires - which may ultimately harm the engineering capability of your company when growth starts happening.
[deleted]
> Fortunately, there's actually broad classes of both. But they often didn't go to Stanford...
What do you mean by the Stanford part?
What do you mean by the Stanford part?
Many companies insist on eg a CS degree from a top 10 or top 20 institution.
"insist"? I've not seen that.
There are obvious significant advantages to prestige, etc but most companies don't insist on it.
There are obvious significant advantages to prestige, etc but most companies don't insist on it.
> I'm a startup founder, and we can't compete head-on for talent. We have to hire people who don't want a FAANG
Then you don't deserve to get those people. If you are paying below market rates, well honestly it sucks to be you, and I don't particularly care if you lose employees.
Instead, the only thing that I care about is getting higher salaries for engineers.
Then you don't deserve to get those people. If you are paying below market rates, well honestly it sucks to be you, and I don't particularly care if you lose employees.
Instead, the only thing that I care about is getting higher salaries for engineers.
I am trying to find a table of the number of H1B visas awarded. The best thing I can find is [1]. It doesn't show enough years of the Trump presidency to be useful, and the 2017 number is incomplete because the report was published before year end in 2017. Other than the fact that visa awards significantly increased from 2015 to 2016, the chart doesn't show what we're looking for.
If anyone can volunteer a better source that would be much appreciated.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re...
If anyone can volunteer a better source that would be much appreciated.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re...
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re... is pretty good data for 2018.
You can see that non-consultancy firms like Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook all have approval rates close to 99%.
You can see that non-consultancy firms like Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook all have approval rates close to 99%.
There's a large difference between IBM Corporation (approval rate 92%) and IBM India Private Limited (approval rate 82%). The difference is even greater if you look only at initial approvals vs. denials (IBM India 62 vs. 60, IBM 268 vs. 3). I wonder what the cause is.
Those numbers are skewed because they count visa extensions and transfers to a different company instead of just new H1Bs arriving. They also don't count people leaving, except in the sense that they won't apply for an extension or transfer in 3 years.
The country numbers are also skewed because someone from countries other than India/China, say France, shows only once or twice in your data before they get their green card and don't have to renew their work visa.
This is because of the hard cap of 7% per country for work green cards regardless of the size of the country. i.e countries with a billion plus people have the same 7% limit as tiny countries.
The country numbers are also skewed because someone from countries other than India/China, say France, shows only once or twice in your data before they get their green card and don't have to renew their work visa.
This is because of the hard cap of 7% per country for work green cards regardless of the size of the country. i.e countries with a billion plus people have the same 7% limit as tiny countries.
There is a cap that is always reached. More denied applications just means more people are applying.
Yup. H1-B has been over-scribed for close to a decade I think.
When a friend applied post-9/11, they didn’t even use up the quota each year.
When a friend applied post-9/11, they didn’t even use up the quota each year.
My H1B at a ~200 person org was returned RFE and then denied. I'm a Canadian who worked at a bonafide SV startup. Been hearing a lot of the same.
I've heard of multiple people who were making $200k+ at medium-to-small size companies having their H1B transfers or extensions denied in the past year and half. As far as I'm aware, in all cases, USCIS said that their job didn't qualify as a "specialty occupation" (i.e. one that requires a bachelor's degree), and denied. This, despite a bunch of them having graduated from highly-ranked U.S. universities with majors in Computer Science, and working as SWEs. The companies often submit reams of documentation showing that the position needs a degree, but to no avail. It's become nearly impossible to convince USCIS that a job requires a degree, these days.
Salary is quite irrelevant. It seems like a large cohort of USCIS officers are trying to eliminate everyone on the H1B, and this is being encouraged by the Trump administration. The sad thing is that denials are completely arbitrary and random, and depends on who looks at the case. I know one person who got approved (for a job as a SWE), soon after graduating from college (transitioning from OPT), despite a low (~100k) salary. So some people get lucky, and slip through the cracks, so to speak.
But in general, USCIS isn't judging cases by their merit, they're not treating jobs with high salaries favorably; the general attitude of this administration seems to be that: if you're from another country, we don't want you here, no matter how well-qualified or well-paid you are.
Salary is quite irrelevant. It seems like a large cohort of USCIS officers are trying to eliminate everyone on the H1B, and this is being encouraged by the Trump administration. The sad thing is that denials are completely arbitrary and random, and depends on who looks at the case. I know one person who got approved (for a job as a SWE), soon after graduating from college (transitioning from OPT), despite a low (~100k) salary. So some people get lucky, and slip through the cracks, so to speak.
But in general, USCIS isn't judging cases by their merit, they're not treating jobs with high salaries favorably; the general attitude of this administration seems to be that: if you're from another country, we don't want you here, no matter how well-qualified or well-paid you are.
"despite a low (~100k) salary."
Reading things like this on HN reminds me to put the screen away and go outside and breathe some fresh air.
Reading things like this on HN reminds me to put the screen away and go outside and breathe some fresh air.
Don't forget to normalize for welfare and cost of life. For a very general outlook, see for example:
https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/san-fra...
https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/san-fra...
Why aren't you using a TN visa?
Not OP, but I’d imagine because there’s no path for greencard on TN
Common misconception but not true at all. It's just slightly riskier.
You can apply for a Green Card on a TN visa you just can't renew your TN if you do.
That’s not correct. TN visa is a non-immigrant intent visa. The path from TN to green card (which I’ve done) is TN -> H1B (dual intent) -> green card.
Nope. You can apply for a Green Card when on a TN visa. One of my coworkers is doing so right now.
https://legalservicesincorporated.com/can-i-apply-for-a-gree...
https://legalservicesincorporated.com/can-i-apply-for-a-gree...
That is interesting, though it seems pretty tenuous. When I started down the path to a GC, TNs we’re indeed 1 year and H1Bs were under quota, so different conditions.
I would guess the route you outlined is the typical route for Canadians, but one can go from TN -> GC.
You have to show up at the border day of to get a TN visa and there's no guarantee you'll get it. H1B is a much more reliable and safer path which is why it's prefered.
It’s much easier to get a TN because there is no quota. Because the H1B is subject to lottery because more people apply than the quota, you have to apply in April to start a job in October. That’s generally not welcome by most employers.
You can apply and get a TN-1 without doing so crossing a border [1]. If you have a straightforward application though there's no reason to which is why so many people just apply on their way though.
[1] https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/978/~/how-to-ob...
[1] https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/978/~/how-to-ob...
Who cares? For most Canadians, the goal would be to make some money then go back. The US is a downgrade from Canada in most metrics.
Please do not cross into nationalistic flamewar in HN threads.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My bad. At the time I thought the statement was somewhat more innocuous than how it apparently came across.
> The US is a downgrade from Canada in most metrics.
As a Canadian who worked in the US for 4.5 years I'd say it's exactly the opposite. The only disadvantage I found working in the US compared to Canada was the absurd process for getting a green card whilst on an H1-B, which is why I now live in Australia.
Otherwise the US was better in every way to Canada: - weather (SoCal) - salary - job opportunities - cost of living - health care (granted provided as part of the package by my employers)
There's a reason most of the top CS graduates in Canada end up in the US.
As a Canadian who worked in the US for 4.5 years I'd say it's exactly the opposite. The only disadvantage I found working in the US compared to Canada was the absurd process for getting a green card whilst on an H1-B, which is why I now live in Australia.
Otherwise the US was better in every way to Canada: - weather (SoCal) - salary - job opportunities - cost of living - health care (granted provided as part of the package by my employers)
There's a reason most of the top CS graduates in Canada end up in the US.
> Otherwise the US was better... health care (granted provided as part of the package by my employers)
I'd be fascinated to hear more if you're open. It's a very common (populist) framing in the US that we have Literally The Worst Healthcare System Ever and every other developed country has a better one- I'd love to hear your perspective as a dual
I'd be fascinated to hear more if you're open. It's a very common (populist) framing in the US that we have Literally The Worst Healthcare System Ever and every other developed country has a better one- I'd love to hear your perspective as a dual
The US healthcare system is probably the best in the world if you're rich.
I had the usual PPO plan when I worked as a SW engineer in the US. It was fine given that my wife and I were young and healthy. We still paid a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket when our son was born after a perfectly normal delivery which was a bit annoying, but again I could afford it so no big deal.
However, our next door neighbour, who was an American citizen and worked as a courier, did not have health insurance provided through his employer which was almost certainly a contributing factor to him dropping dead of a heart attack in his mid 40s leaving behind a wife and young son. I think it's safe to assume that his life expectancy would have been higher if he'd lived in a country like Canada or Australia where there is universal healthcare, especially for potentially life threatening conditions.
I think it's unfortunate that Canada is used as the most common comparison in the universal healthcare debate in the US since (even as a Canadian) I think the Canadian healthcare system is worse than pretty much any other developed country except the US!
I'm currently living in Australia where I think the healthcare system is excellent since it combines a base universal healthcare system with a parallel private system with relatively affordable private insurance (which I pay for myself, it's totally separate from your employer). This model is similar in most other West countries (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Sweden (!)), the notable exception being Canada where there is no meaningful private healthcare option, unless you can afford to pay cash in the US, which e.g. a former boss of Vancouver did. So it makes it more difficult for Americans to claim the Canadian system is better when the fact is that many (albeit relatively wealthy) Canadians jump the public queue in Canada by going to the US.
I had the usual PPO plan when I worked as a SW engineer in the US. It was fine given that my wife and I were young and healthy. We still paid a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket when our son was born after a perfectly normal delivery which was a bit annoying, but again I could afford it so no big deal.
However, our next door neighbour, who was an American citizen and worked as a courier, did not have health insurance provided through his employer which was almost certainly a contributing factor to him dropping dead of a heart attack in his mid 40s leaving behind a wife and young son. I think it's safe to assume that his life expectancy would have been higher if he'd lived in a country like Canada or Australia where there is universal healthcare, especially for potentially life threatening conditions.
I think it's unfortunate that Canada is used as the most common comparison in the universal healthcare debate in the US since (even as a Canadian) I think the Canadian healthcare system is worse than pretty much any other developed country except the US!
I'm currently living in Australia where I think the healthcare system is excellent since it combines a base universal healthcare system with a parallel private system with relatively affordable private insurance (which I pay for myself, it's totally separate from your employer). This model is similar in most other West countries (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Sweden (!)), the notable exception being Canada where there is no meaningful private healthcare option, unless you can afford to pay cash in the US, which e.g. a former boss of Vancouver did. So it makes it more difficult for Americans to claim the Canadian system is better when the fact is that many (albeit relatively wealthy) Canadians jump the public queue in Canada by going to the US.
Too late to edit: "former boss of Vancouver" should be "former boss of mine in Vancouver".
Won't argue this point but will only say that the experience of living anywhere is better when you have a high paying job.
Good point.
Spouses can't work when their partner is on a TN. A Green Card allows the spouse to work.
Typically the spouse or partner will have their own TN.
All H-1B requests within the past year to 1.5 years now result in a RFE. My experience as a hiring manager, both at a startup and at another enterprise level company, was that this doubled the cost of hiring H-1B candidates. This was unfortunate, because if you’re in a market where FANG companies and other tech companies are competing for candidates, it’s tough to find anybody qualified.
True!
What boggles my mind is that a seemingly large number of companies, who are priced entirely out of the market in SV, still try and compete there, rather than opening an office in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, etc.
Plenty of local talent, and the low end of the SF payscale is fiercely competitive in any of the above, largely because the cost of living is half-or-less of anything in the Bay.
What boggles my mind is that a seemingly large number of companies, who are priced entirely out of the market in SV, still try and compete there, rather than opening an office in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, etc.
Plenty of local talent, and the low end of the SF payscale is fiercely competitive in any of the above, largely because the cost of living is half-or-less of anything in the Bay.
what's your experience in hiring in these smaller cities? I've consistently heard that it's pretty hard to find quality talent at market prices.
I hope to not come across as too snarky, but the issue for many employers may be in not fully comprehending either "quality talent" and "market prices".
You won't have to pay Google-in-Mountain-View competitive wages, sure, but you do need to be competitive against the general tech market, inclusive of SV remote companies.
Assume a reasonably skilled, experienced software engineer. According to Indeed's Salary Search[1], in San Francisco, they could reasonably expect to hit an annual salary of USD 170k at Companies That Are Not Google, whereas in Salt Lake City, that number drops to USD 90k.
USD 90k is well below the bottom of the market in the Bay, and is near-as-makes-no-difference half of what our hypothetical engineer would make in SF.
In terms of raw-cost-of-living, sure, those numbers work out. However, people do like to also build up their savings account, and that's where things fall apart.
Post-tax, the SF salary will net you USD 110k. Your annual cost of living will run you somewhere around USD 77k. In Utah, you'll net USD 64k post-tax, and your annual living expenses will run you somewhere around USD 48k.
Rent is 70% higher in SF, and cost-of-goods is 20% higher, but you also don't need to own a car or pay for car insurance, both of which you will need in Salt Lake.
In SF, our hypothetical engineer will be able to bank USD 33k annually, more if they contribute to a 401(k) or other tax-deferred savings vehicle. In Salt Lake, that number drops down to USD 16k per annum.
That's a massive gap, which is often similarly reflected in long-term compensation -- e.g., the engineer in SF might see USD 100k+ in annual stock options, whereas the one in Salt Lake will probably see half that.
To be competitive on salary, that Salt Lake company would need to lay USD 120k on the table. That's 30% less than in SF -- plus all the other operational savings -- but not "half", which is what "market" seems to be at present.
[1] https://www.indeed.com/salaries
You won't have to pay Google-in-Mountain-View competitive wages, sure, but you do need to be competitive against the general tech market, inclusive of SV remote companies.
Assume a reasonably skilled, experienced software engineer. According to Indeed's Salary Search[1], in San Francisco, they could reasonably expect to hit an annual salary of USD 170k at Companies That Are Not Google, whereas in Salt Lake City, that number drops to USD 90k.
USD 90k is well below the bottom of the market in the Bay, and is near-as-makes-no-difference half of what our hypothetical engineer would make in SF.
In terms of raw-cost-of-living, sure, those numbers work out. However, people do like to also build up their savings account, and that's where things fall apart.
Post-tax, the SF salary will net you USD 110k. Your annual cost of living will run you somewhere around USD 77k. In Utah, you'll net USD 64k post-tax, and your annual living expenses will run you somewhere around USD 48k.
Rent is 70% higher in SF, and cost-of-goods is 20% higher, but you also don't need to own a car or pay for car insurance, both of which you will need in Salt Lake.
In SF, our hypothetical engineer will be able to bank USD 33k annually, more if they contribute to a 401(k) or other tax-deferred savings vehicle. In Salt Lake, that number drops down to USD 16k per annum.
That's a massive gap, which is often similarly reflected in long-term compensation -- e.g., the engineer in SF might see USD 100k+ in annual stock options, whereas the one in Salt Lake will probably see half that.
To be competitive on salary, that Salt Lake company would need to lay USD 120k on the table. That's 30% less than in SF -- plus all the other operational savings -- but not "half", which is what "market" seems to be at present.
[1] https://www.indeed.com/salaries
This is a very sensible reply. I live in flyover land and I don't want to move for a FAANG job. But I'm not going to take something for $90k: the amount I can contribute to my 401k is the same in SF or flyover land and the amount I have to pay for my kid to go to fancy college someday is the same whether I earned my money here or there.
It is apparently tough to find "quality talent" say some here; I did get a job offer with a nice compensation package in just two weeks when I recently started applying places and the word I heard was that it was competitive on employer's side.
It is apparently tough to find "quality talent" say some here; I did get a job offer with a nice compensation package in just two weeks when I recently started applying places and the word I heard was that it was competitive on employer's side.
Ah yes, good 'ol SLC. Great quality of life if you like skiing and hiking. Your salary numbers are about right, top of the scale tends to be around $80-100k with the median in the high $70s. They call it 'Silicon Mountain' and despite the NSA putting their super datacenter there, a large number of small and medium sized software companies and a smattering of enterprise shops, the salary numbers don't change much there. What has changed is the price of real estate (nearly doubled over the last 15 years) and property taxes have increased in concert. Still more affordable than SV, but doesn't seem to be growing beyond it's roots.
Have you tried increasing your wages?
So if they cannot afford half a million in wages they should either close or move offshore?
Offshoring is what is happening and will accelerate. Search the article for 'Toronto'.
Offshoring is what is happening and will accelerate. Search the article for 'Toronto'.
You ask a great question: If a business isn't able to employ American workers at competitive pay, what purpose does it serve for the country? Why should it be here or exist?
I have sympathy for cash poor startup founders, but offering substantial equity works wonders. Like a real amount, not something that rounds to 0. It's hard to feel bad for someone who wants to keep all the upside and not pay a good salary. Someone making 500k elsewhere should be a key hire, so spend or dilute yourself accordingly.
I have sympathy for cash poor startup founders, but offering substantial equity works wonders. Like a real amount, not something that rounds to 0. It's hard to feel bad for someone who wants to keep all the upside and not pay a good salary. Someone making 500k elsewhere should be a key hire, so spend or dilute yourself accordingly.
If most American startups aren't able to hire American workers at competitive pay and start moving little by little to (say) Canada, aren't there a risk that the whole VC/startup ecosystem will slowly move there? If the Apple/Google/Amazon of tomorrow are Canadian, how does that serve USA or American workers?
It's a short term vs long term balance. As an American you should want US to remain dominant in the startup ecosystem. Restricting startup access to skilled workers is counter-productive in the long run, even if it serves your short-term interests.
It's a short term vs long term balance. As an American you should want US to remain dominant in the startup ecosystem. Restricting startup access to skilled workers is counter-productive in the long run, even if it serves your short-term interests.
[deleted]
Businesses do not exist merely to serve their host countries. They serve the needs of many people, including shareholders, customers, employees and the communities (not just countries) they are based in.
> You ask a great question: If a business isn't able to employ American workers at competitive pay, what purpose does it serve for the country? Why should it be here or exist?
One would assume that the business still pays taxes, bills, rent etc.
It's still a net gain to the economy, especially when the alternative is for the work to go overseas.
One would assume that the business still pays taxes, bills, rent etc.
It's still a net gain to the economy, especially when the alternative is for the work to go overseas.
Instead of fighting over the same people for a decade, they could try hiring some junior people and letting them take on increasing responsibility. The guy who made Stardew Valley lived in Seattle, had a CS degree, and couldn't get a job! It worked out for him in the end, but not for the companies constantly whining that they can't find workers.
Yes, our co-op programs were successful in providing a junior pipeline.
> So if they cannot afford half a million in wages they should either close or move offshore?
Unironically yes. Thats is what they should do. If you pay below market wages, well sucks to be you, I don't care if you complain.
But to give an actual good face alternative, they could hire lower skilled employees from non-traditional backgrounds, and train them up.
Unironically yes. Thats is what they should do. If you pay below market wages, well sucks to be you, I don't care if you complain.
But to give an actual good face alternative, they could hire lower skilled employees from non-traditional backgrounds, and train them up.
[deleted]
I think you know the answer to that question.
Are you concerned for foreigners wages? Because restrictions on the visa are what pushes them down, not up.
We are still a small company of 40+ people and have quite unprecedented issues with H-1Bs, from transfer though extension. Literally every single H-1B extension or transfer got slapped by RFE. The amount of documents we had to produce to prove that an employee, who works for us for 3 years, is still valuable, is just mind-blowing.
BTW we got RFE equally for people that are from Europe and India.
PS: because it was brought up by someone in this thread, we don’t employ immigrants to save money. Check any of my “who is hiring” posts [0] and you can see, that we pay equally across the US to all employees based on their skill level. We bring immigrants because we’re having hard times finding skilled workers locally. The competition for talent is quite brutal and we just can’t pay the same as FAANG.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587535
BTW we got RFE equally for people that are from Europe and India.
PS: because it was brought up by someone in this thread, we don’t employ immigrants to save money. Check any of my “who is hiring” posts [0] and you can see, that we pay equally across the US to all employees based on their skill level. We bring immigrants because we’re having hard times finding skilled workers locally. The competition for talent is quite brutal and we just can’t pay the same as FAANG.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587535
I live nearby in LA and (when I was looking) submitted my resume with twenty years experience. Didn’t even get to a phone screen.
My guess is you’re making the same mistake so many companies do. Hyper focused on tech X rather than Y or Z. Refusal to train for a month, but would rather wait a year and chase HB1s to nowhere. i.e. Looking for a unicorn instead of developing them.
I’m happily employed on the east coast working remotely now. Had to pick up a new skill or two. Never used Solr before, now I have. Took a few weeks to get proficient in between other responsibilities.
My guess is you’re making the same mistake so many companies do. Hyper focused on tech X rather than Y or Z. Refusal to train for a month, but would rather wait a year and chase HB1s to nowhere. i.e. Looking for a unicorn instead of developing them.
I’m happily employed on the east coast working remotely now. Had to pick up a new skill or two. Never used Solr before, now I have. Took a few weeks to get proficient in between other responsibilities.
We are far from perfect and make plenty of mistakes. Hiring is no different.
I’m glad you found a better opportunity than us.
Just maybe a note. If you read my original post, all are our existing employees or transfers.
I’m glad you found a better opportunity than us.
Just maybe a note. If you read my original post, all are our existing employees or transfers.
Right, no one is perfect. Would be great if the issue wasn’t so endemic.
[deleted]
Amen. Startups are like the import car scene. They all go out with a shopping list, get the same bootstrap launch page, hire the same social networking team, get wooded by a hire company with l33tcode screening, and then wonder why they develop long-term relationships with recruiters --- instead developers.
The reality is, any good programmer can screen another programmer within 15 minutes. A conversation about there last implementation, the challanges and how they responded to them is a good start.
Coding professionally is an expression of ones self. A missing semi-column is tell, not a linting issue.
The reality is, any good programmer can screen another programmer within 15 minutes. A conversation about there last implementation, the challanges and how they responded to them is a good start.
Coding professionally is an expression of ones self. A missing semi-column is tell, not a linting issue.
you mean semi-colon? check your linter!
> we don’t employ immigrants to save money.
> The competition for talent is quite brutal and we just can’t pay the same as FAANG.
You don't have to pay immigrants less in order to be saving money by employing immigrants. The whole point is that by expanding the labor pool, you're reducing salaries and negotiating power for everyone.
That's not what the H1-B system was designed for. It was designed to facilitate hiring folks with specialized skills you can't get locally. E.g. you want to hire an Indian person who did his PhD on something relevant to a project you're working on.
> The competition for talent is quite brutal and we just can’t pay the same as FAANG.
You don't have to pay immigrants less in order to be saving money by employing immigrants. The whole point is that by expanding the labor pool, you're reducing salaries and negotiating power for everyone.
That's not what the H1-B system was designed for. It was designed to facilitate hiring folks with specialized skills you can't get locally. E.g. you want to hire an Indian person who did his PhD on something relevant to a project you're working on.
> you're reducing salaries and negotiating power for everyone.
Rather, you're leveling it by expanding the labor pool to include the rest of the world, aka via globalization. Not inherently bad imo, but I could understand why someone patriotic would find this problematic.
Rather, you're leveling it by expanding the labor pool to include the rest of the world, aka via globalization. Not inherently bad imo, but I could understand why someone patriotic would find this problematic.
Well, H1B visas do not expand the labor pool. H1B visas allow members of an already expanded labor pool to join and contribute to the US economy.
The alternative to fewer H1B visas is not just hiring Americans. In fact, hiring Americans is far less likely than simply hiring Indians and letting them work in India. Or, as is happening increasingly, having Chinese and Indian employees who were educated in the US, move to Canada.
The alternative to fewer H1B visas is not just hiring Americans. In fact, hiring Americans is far less likely than simply hiring Indians and letting them work in India. Or, as is happening increasingly, having Chinese and Indian employees who were educated in the US, move to Canada.
> Well, H1B visas do not expand the labor pool. H1B visas allow members of an already expanded labor pool to join and contribute to the US economy.
Semantics. In economic terms, it's expanding the labour pool.
Semantics. In economic terms, it's expanding the labour pool.
Can those of us born in the US and educated there be moved to Canada by FAANGs? If that's already happening by all means reply and let me know how to get in on it before all the stuff really hits the fan in the US.
Sure. Definitely already a thing! I know plenty of people from the US who joined a company in the US with international offices and then transferred (temporarily or permanently) to an office somewhere else. Singapore comes to mind, but I am sure the case for Canada is even easier (given NAFTA and similar).
You could also just directly apply to a position that happens to be in Canada, e.g. https://careers.google.com/locations/toronto/?hl=en
By the way, you actually might not need any FAANG (or other Canadian employer) help: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
You could also just directly apply to a position that happens to be in Canada, e.g. https://careers.google.com/locations/toronto/?hl=en
By the way, you actually might not need any FAANG (or other Canadian employer) help: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
And I can't. Expanding labor pool means that companies can afford to open lines of businesses that were previously deemed unsustainable, and eventually hire locals for e.g. administrative support.
Most businesses are at equilibrium. There is no choice of "hire locally and pay them well or hire globally and pocket the difference". The choice is "hire globally and expand" (and eventually hire more locals), or "hire locally and stay small, or even get out of business".
Most businesses are at equilibrium. There is no choice of "hire locally and pay them well or hire globally and pocket the difference". The choice is "hire globally and expand" (and eventually hire more locals), or "hire locally and stay small, or even get out of business".
Also someone who was part of the expanding labor pool, including immigrants who have already got in.
At this point, doing that will just fuel more offshoring to Canada to India. It happened to manufacturing where it was harder to move or build factories. Note that the article mentions Toronto as already benefiting. As companies get comfortable with fully remote workers they won't even bother with renting offices offshore.
And doing that may put downward pressure on wages for ordinary Canadians. Their citizens vote, too.
I don't think offshoring to India is a real worry. They lack the rule of law and stable business environment of countries like the US and Canada. Nobody with sensitive IP would outsource their core business there. If offshoring worked well, even with H-1Bs being allowed, companies would already prefer keeping Indian employees there with lower salary and COL, but they don't.
I also have a hard time believing fully remote work will ever be more than a niche thing. Shared context and serendipitous discussion of ideas are so important.
I don't think offshoring to India is a real worry. They lack the rule of law and stable business environment of countries like the US and Canada. Nobody with sensitive IP would outsource their core business there. If offshoring worked well, even with H-1Bs being allowed, companies would already prefer keeping Indian employees there with lower salary and COL, but they don't.
I also have a hard time believing fully remote work will ever be more than a niche thing. Shared context and serendipitous discussion of ideas are so important.
How does moving high paying jobs from Canada to Canada while being done by the same people reduce wages in Canada?
If anything it will greatly help the local economy, and increases tax revenue for local, province and federal govts.
>If offshoring worked well, even with H-1Bs being allowed, companies would already prefer keeping Indian employees there with lower salary and COL, but they don't
What makes you think they don't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_India
Headcount is 6500.
It can just be expanded to include more jobs if it keeps getting harder and more expensive to hire in the US.
Brain drain from India to US currently hinders it, but if the rules keep getting tougher, retaining talent in India or attracting them to Canada becomes easier.
Remember when lots of people thought high quality cars couldn't be made in Japan or South Korea?
Regarding Canada becoming a hub for offshore workers, back in 2007:
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2663608/microsoft-vancouve...
A couple of years ago:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/trumps-immig...
2018: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/microsoft-might-be-forced-to...
>I also have a hard time believing fully remote work will ever be more than a niche thing. Shared context and serendipitous discussion of ideas are so important.
Isn't GitLab 100% remote?
I think Github has like 60% of people remote as well.
Also, the Linux kernel has been developed with people being fully remote for the most part.
If anything it will greatly help the local economy, and increases tax revenue for local, province and federal govts.
>If offshoring worked well, even with H-1Bs being allowed, companies would already prefer keeping Indian employees there with lower salary and COL, but they don't
What makes you think they don't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_India
Headcount is 6500.
It can just be expanded to include more jobs if it keeps getting harder and more expensive to hire in the US.
Brain drain from India to US currently hinders it, but if the rules keep getting tougher, retaining talent in India or attracting them to Canada becomes easier.
Remember when lots of people thought high quality cars couldn't be made in Japan or South Korea?
Regarding Canada becoming a hub for offshore workers, back in 2007:
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2663608/microsoft-vancouve...
A couple of years ago:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/trumps-immig...
2018: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/microsoft-might-be-forced-to...
>I also have a hard time believing fully remote work will ever be more than a niche thing. Shared context and serendipitous discussion of ideas are so important.
Isn't GitLab 100% remote?
I think Github has like 60% of people remote as well.
Also, the Linux kernel has been developed with people being fully remote for the most part.
This trope gets brought up a lot but the definition of specialized skills is broader than PHD level expertise. That is your interpretation of it and not that of the law or of the Federal Government.
I do understand your point. I would however venture out and say, that a person that can scale services to tens of thousands of servers, has quite specialized skillset.
[deleted]
To add to the chorus, I'm seeing that too. Work with a professional masters' program in a highly technical (non-software) field and all our non-US grads are getting hit with RFEs. It's making a lot of work for some of the folks in our program administration, as writing letters of support outlining the specific and substantial technical skills of these people is not trivial -- and these letters are under increased scrutiny from the feds.
These folks are getting market-rate positions -- since I'm in flyover country, there are no FAANG competitors here.
These folks are getting market-rate positions -- since I'm in flyover country, there are no FAANG competitors here.
All the other commenters are saying you should hire Americans, but why don't you instead hire remote?
Remote is the new open-office. It’s quite hard to make it work and you have to be set up that way from the start.
>>"It's quite hard to make it work"
Agreed, but that won't stop companies from trying anyway. From my experience, a lot of large companies can't really tell that their remote setups aren't really working.
[Edit] Added to word 'Agreed'.
Agreed, but that won't stop companies from trying anyway. From my experience, a lot of large companies can't really tell that their remote setups aren't really working.
[Edit] Added to word 'Agreed'.
Agreed. For a company of our size, we would not last long.
I work for a 35 person startup with hq in the valley. We are 10ppl here in Mexico (gdl) and the rest are up there.
There are numerous start ups that have setup shop here (humanapi, scalable press, grainchain, brightcove, wizeline among many others).
Given the time zone closeness and culture similarities, it is normally a win-win situation.
My company even moved someone from India who lost his H1B to work here. Apparently it's easier.
There are numerous start ups that have setup shop here (humanapi, scalable press, grainchain, brightcove, wizeline among many others).
Given the time zone closeness and culture similarities, it is normally a win-win situation.
My company even moved someone from India who lost his H1B to work here. Apparently it's easier.
Your company very well might be doing remote-work "the right way" and getting a lot of productive work done, in which cause I would applaud your company. I'm not arguing that it can't be done successfully. However, I still stand by my statement that remote work is hard to do well, but despite this companies will try anyway. I should also clarify -- I was mostly speaking from the position of a large enterprise (40,000+ people).
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your post is unintentionally hilariously oblivious.
> we don’t employ immigrants to save money... the competition for talent is quite brutal and we just can’t pay the same as FAANG.
No, no, we're not doing it to save money...we just can't pay the local market rate so we import cheaper workers. But it's not to save money.
> we don’t employ immigrants to save money... the competition for talent is quite brutal and we just can’t pay the same as FAANG.
No, no, we're not doing it to save money...we just can't pay the local market rate so we import cheaper workers. But it's not to save money.
Would you please review the site guidelines and stop breaking them? They include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Also: "Don't be snarky."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Save money implies that we make the money in the first place and then take it for ourselves instead of paying it to our employees.
Almost nobody can compete with the comp provided by FAANG. Do you want 5 companies running everything in your life? Isn’t far enough already?
Almost nobody can compete with the comp provided by FAANG. Do you want 5 companies running everything in your life? Isn’t far enough already?
Offer perks that they can't or won't: A four-day work week, no-questions-asked remote, the chance to do something other than soulless ad-tech.
Finance pays better than anyone else, and yet people apply for jobs with non-finance firms.
Finance pays better than anyone else, and yet people apply for jobs with non-finance firms.
That’s what we (and others) do. There is just not enough skilled people available.
...at the rate you're willing/able to pay.
There are plenty of skilled people out there -- they're just getting top dollar for their skills.
There are plenty of skilled people out there -- they're just getting top dollar for their skills.
Really. So why do need FAANG bring any immigrants if there is so much talent and it’s just a question of money, which they have plenty of.
If doh offers more and poaches an engineer from a FAANG company, that company will now be down one engineer. The shortage of skilled engineers will still exist.
The fact that salaries are so high for skilled engineers is an indication of the labor shortage.
The fact that salaries are so high for skilled engineers is an indication of the labor shortage.
Salaries are so high only in Silicon Valley and a couple of other major tech hubs. In the rest of the country, junior engineers make somewhere between 35-65k and a senior engineer can expect to cap out at the end of their career between 100-120k.
This suggests there is no nationwide labor shortage, just a shortage of people willing to move to major tech hubs.
By allowing tech companies to evade the underlying problem by hiring immigrant labor, we are making the knock on effects (eg SF housing prices, salaries outside of SV) even worse.
This suggests there is no nationwide labor shortage, just a shortage of people willing to move to major tech hubs.
By allowing tech companies to evade the underlying problem by hiring immigrant labor, we are making the knock on effects (eg SF housing prices, salaries outside of SV) even worse.
Are these junior engineers who are making 35K as skilled as the FAANG junior engineers entering at >100K? How many of these low-paid junior engineers are there? Enough to replace the >50% of SV engineers who are foreign-born?
> Are these junior engineers who are making 35K as skilled as the FAANG junior engineers entering at >100K?
Yes. FAANG engineers are good but not extraordinary.
> How many of these low-paid junior engineers are there? Enough to replace the >50% of SV engineers who are foreign-born?
Probably, if we somehow reorganized the way hiring is done, such that we were able to pick up talent anywhere in the country. There are well more than a million software developers in the US according to the BLS.
Yes. FAANG engineers are good but not extraordinary.
> How many of these low-paid junior engineers are there? Enough to replace the >50% of SV engineers who are foreign-born?
Probably, if we somehow reorganized the way hiring is done, such that we were able to pick up talent anywhere in the country. There are well more than a million software developers in the US according to the BLS.
> There are well more than a million software developers in the US according to the BLS.
That's not available idle capacity, that's a count of people currently employed in the field including all the foreign-born developers your nativist fantasy involves replacing. And the expected 10-year grown is 24% in that number, much faster than average for all employment areas.
That's not available idle capacity, that's a count of people currently employed in the field including all the foreign-born developers your nativist fantasy involves replacing. And the expected 10-year grown is 24% in that number, much faster than average for all employment areas.
What you're effectively arguing is that the US does not require nearly as large a number of software engineers as it currently has. It could exclude more than half the software engineers in its largest tech hub, and still fill all the open positions. I find that a bit implausible, especially given how intensely software companies already compete with one another to attract workers. They're not only doing that out of the goodness of their hearts.
Are you running at the size and complexity of a FAANG? Do you need them? There are plenty of developers that would gladly take less than half of the salary of a FAANG to not have to move to the west coast.
You should’ve just checked my profile. Yes, we run at the complexity of Google [0]. We do almost exactly the same thing with a bit different use case.
There are not many people that could work for us at the scale we run. [1]
[0] https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2018/06/22/video-search...
[1] https://cloud.google.com/customers/pex/
There are not many people that could work for us at the scale we run. [1]
[0] https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2018/06/22/video-search...
[1] https://cloud.google.com/customers/pex/
Amezarak(3)
If this were true, why do FAANGs all support raising the H1B cap?
Because they compete against all of us and each other. Google has tens of thousands of engineers and wants more.
>Almost nobody can compete with the comp provided by FAANG. Do you want 5 companies running everything in your life? Isn’t far enough already?
But your argument was that H-1B favors small companies and hurts large ones. So if Google agreed with your argument they would oppose H-1Bs.
edit: quoted doh's comment
But your argument was that H-1B favors small companies and hurts large ones. So if Google agreed with your argument they would oppose H-1Bs.
edit: quoted doh's comment
Where did I make that argument?
dnsiz(2)
How much does it cost to train a new hire who isn't technically proficient but is willing to work for half price?
If you are worried about retention, a non-compete agreement is an option considering you are deliberately investing resources into hiring them for a position they are currently unqualified for.
I signed such an agreement and have been enjoying a nice career ever since.
If you are worried about retention, a non-compete agreement is an option considering you are deliberately investing resources into hiring them for a position they are currently unqualified for.
I signed such an agreement and have been enjoying a nice career ever since.
Lets start with the fact that non-competes are illegal in California [0]. Even if they were not, that's not a great way to retain an employee and we would not like to go down that path.
Problem with training is not just cost, but mostly time. If you need to grow the business but your employees are not ready to for the scale, there is not much you can do about it. A few companies died because of this, notably Digg and Friendster.
[0] https://www.sanjosebusinesslawyersblog.com/are-non-compete-a...
Problem with training is not just cost, but mostly time. If you need to grow the business but your employees are not ready to for the scale, there is not much you can do about it. A few companies died because of this, notably Digg and Friendster.
[0] https://www.sanjosebusinesslawyersblog.com/are-non-compete-a...
>A few companies died because of this, notably Digg and Friendster
Interesting, never heard about that. Any place where I can read more about it?
Interesting, never heard about that. Any place where I can read more about it?
Digg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg#Digg_v4
Friendster http://highscalability.com/blog/2007/11/13/friendster-lost-l...
There are, of course, others. Twitter wasn't far from meeting the same fate. That's (partially) why Dorsey was fired.
Friendster http://highscalability.com/blog/2007/11/13/friendster-lost-l...
There are, of course, others. Twitter wasn't far from meeting the same fate. That's (partially) why Dorsey was fired.
My best friend is full blown concert pianist, who graduated from Yale, finishing her PhD in one of the most prestigious conservatories in US. She performs internationally with orchestras : Japan, Europe, Asia. Has CD recordings, won number of international competitions. Recently, she played Rachmaninoff piano concerto with orchestra in VA/DC area. Guess what ? She is struggling to get any documents to stay here permanently.
And here, I'm sitting in Fortune x0 company, filled with unqualified HB-1 software engineers, who produce trashy code and don't care about quality of their work, because in x-Months, they will be out or replaced.
HB-1 was made for people like my friend - a highly qualified PhD and not cheap contractors shipped in packs from overseas. I'm kind of glad that this racket is being closed for good.
HB-1 was made for people like my friend - a highly qualified PhD and not cheap contractors shipped in packs from overseas. I'm kind of glad that this racket is being closed for good.
H1-B visa is not intended for performing arts category or for extraordinary artists. It is intended for specialty occupation such as software engineers and data scientists etc. I understand your frustration but the way to reform the system is to give the visas to the "right" candidates within the speciality occupation rather than giving it to an entirely different category in which your friend belongs to.
[deleted]
newprint(3)
Your last paragraph implies that if there were fewer H1B visas given out to Indian software engineers then your brilliant musician friend would have a chance. Though this kind of zero-sum fallacy is commonplace, that's not how immigration politics works. For the most part, if a particular USA federal administration is anti-immigrant, then they will hurt all or most immigration applicants, and vice versa, meaning that fewer software H1Bs do not result in better outcomes for your friend, quite the opposite.
Wrong. Read carefully.
What I'm saying is that people who should not be on HB-1 are getting visas and people who truly deserve HB-1, aren't getting it.
That does not make much sense. H1B visas (you keep saying HB-1 but there is no visa called HB-1 so I am not entirely sure which visa you're talking about) needs to be sponsored by a company, they are not just given to people. If a company is willing to to hire her, maybe she can try applying to any US company. If not, there is no way to say she "deserves" it when it's only in your eyes, i.e apparently she or you are not able to convince a company to hire her.
There are also EB-1 green cards that might qualify her since she has a PHD, but they're usually for the STEM field. I have no idea why this is relevant to H1B visas which serve a different purpose.
There are also EB-1 green cards that might qualify her since she has a PHD, but they're usually for the STEM field. I have no idea why this is relevant to H1B visas which serve a different purpose.
I guess, H1-B visa is an example of artificial scarcity; the government could just give your deserving friend a visa without taking one away from a software job shop. There's not really a finite supply of them, other than what the government chooses.
If an administration is cracking down on software shops, that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they want to make those visas easier to get for anyone else.
If an administration is cracking down on software shops, that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they want to make those visas easier to get for anyone else.
The market seems to disagree. There isn't a lot of work available for concert pianists.
Isn’t an O-1 visa designed for situations like your friend?
According to immigration lawyers, it is very hard to get docs through O-1. You literally have to be international star. She is not, but still, she is level above what many musicians achieve in their lifetime.
I've heard of people getting O-1 while being far less than an "international star". Canadian founders getting minor acquihire buyouts have gotten them. You just need to get some letters from influential people. ie, business leaders in the local industry or a politician. Like most things it's as much about who you know and how well you check the right checkboxes as it is about merit. This another perk of VCs and selling to big companies.
My understanding the same as that of my two sibling comments. You just need to demonstrate excellence in your field in order to get an O-1. For example in Computer Science, that might be X citations in published work, Y reviews you've written as reviewer (counts as service), and letters of support from experts in the subfield of Computer Science. If your pianist friend has won international competitions, CD recordings and performed with orchestras around the world, that surely counts as excellence in her field. She should consult an immigration attorney ASAP. Even if initial consultation costs money (and it often doesn't), it sounds like a worthwhile path forward if she wants to stay. O-1 is not as prestigious or rare as you make it seem.
It really depends on the immigration lawyer, I know many people who study public health & even computer science use O-1 as alternative. non of them are even close to have international influence
Your friend seems to have had access to many opportunities which none of the unqualified HB-1 software engineers you mention may ever have, and it seems like she made the best out of it. Congratulations for her.
Despite all her merits, though, life as a musician is financially much harder than that of a software engineer. For visa purposes, unfortunately, you want to make sure people can get by on their own. I hope things work out for her.
Despite all her merits, though, life as a musician is financially much harder than that of a software engineer. For visa purposes, unfortunately, you want to make sure people can get by on their own. I hope things work out for her.
I agree with you. If the H1-B program were being used properly it'd be fantastic, but I've had too many friends (three being the "too many" in my case) spend their last six weeks on the job training their half-competent H1-B replacements. It may very well not be the case most of the time, but in my experience H1-B has been used as a prybar when companies have highly-versatile, highly-paid personnel they want to replace with someone who's trained to only do one job and do that job for less money. If I had the option to keep the program exactly as it is now or restrict it to only persons with doctorates, I would choose the latter.
Stop hating! If you are sitting with incompetent people you're incompetent too! Why doesn't she apply for O1 visa? You know nothing about nothing.
Disclaimer: I'm on H1B too, graduated from Rice CS.
Disclaimer: I'm on H1B too, graduated from Rice CS.
I've always thought that the current salary requirement (min 60k) was a poor way to go about implementing H1B. Companies want H1B visas, workers want to make sure that their jobs are not displaced.
As such, they should make the salary requiement something like twice the rate of whichever is greater: market rate for the role, the highest salary paid to any non-H1B employee at that company in the same role.
At that point, you can relax (not remove) the H1B cap, because it makes it cheaper to hire locals, so companies will only seek out H1Bs when there really are talent shortages.
As such, they should make the salary requiement something like twice the rate of whichever is greater: market rate for the role, the highest salary paid to any non-H1B employee at that company in the same role.
At that point, you can relax (not remove) the H1B cap, because it makes it cheaper to hire locals, so companies will only seek out H1Bs when there really are talent shortages.
> market rate for the role, the highest salary paid to any non-H1B employee at that company in the same role.
Easy, just give all your H1B software developers the official role of "janitor".
The real way to solve this is with a higher salary floor, or even better, a salary auction.
Easy, just give all your H1B software developers the official role of "janitor".
The real way to solve this is with a higher salary floor, or even better, a salary auction.
Do you really think the labor certification process which all H1Bs go through will allow janitors?
Already most H1B jobs are entry-level jobs with senior-level requirements. Maybe that's part of the reason for the recent purge.
It's not Labor certification. They file a labor condition application. All it requires is that the wage be above the prevailing wage for that occupation in that metro area.
The most noticeable impact that will have is shift many many jobs to immigrant friendly countries in the same time zone like Canada, or just straight to India. That'd be a lot of taxes and local consumption happening outside the US.
Take places like Japan, negligible work immigration but wages haven't really been growing along with productivity.
Take places like Japan, negligible work immigration but wages haven't really been growing along with productivity.
Sounds like an opportunity for a tech maquiladora in Mexico or points farther South. Mexico has the benefit of low cost of living and easy access to the US. I placed people in Buenos Aires and it has a standard of living similar to any large city in the US.
It is already happening here in GDL, Mexico. Several start ups have opened dev shops down here. They have a competitive advantage and plenty of comparatively cheap talent to get from big companies like Oracle, hp, IBM, Intel, Tata,Cognizant, among others that already have bored developers.
Argentina has little in common with Mexico besides the Spanish language.
> Take places like Japan, negligible work immigration
Japan has work immigration, they dont call it work immigration, they call it technical internship.
Japan has work immigration, they dont call it work immigration, they call it technical internship.
> immigrant friendly countries in the same time zone like Canada
Canada has a stricter immigration requirements than US. Its just that there is a huge demand for visas so it gets backlogged.
Canada has a stricter immigration requirements than US. Its just that there is a huge demand for visas so it gets backlogged.
In the context of skilled workers, Canadian immigration is exponentially easier than US immigration.
Haha yeah ive had work visas in both ca and the us. Ca is much more straightforward. It’s not easy, but it’s not riddled with hostile confusing BS like the US process is
Huh, till a few years ago you become a Permanent Resident in some provinces, just for being a tech worker in the US. No need to have even visited or ever worked in Canada on their work visa.
That would be a huge drain on small businesses like startups, though. Only companies like Google would be able to afford it.
> the current salary requirement (min 60k)
That's not actually what it is. You have to submit the job for a "labor market opinion" (if I recall the name correctly) that tells you the prevailing wage for that job in your area.
> the current salary requirement (min 60k)
That's not actually what it is. You have to submit the job for a "labor market opinion" (if I recall the name correctly) that tells you the prevailing wage for that job in your area.
Here's an idea. Make the caps salary dependent. No caps for positions paying > 100k (example), or keep the lottery if needed but every 10k increase on the salary from the minimum gets the application a new ticket on the draw.
The $60k salary minimum hasn't changed since 1989, so it originally wasn't really unreasonable to think that only high skilled/hard to find labor would be brought in thru the visa.
This does not just impact consulting companies and body shops.
Big companies like Apple, JP Morgan, Blackrock, Coca Cola, Visa, Verizon and dozens of others are also very negatively impacted.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/23/news/companies/business-rou...
Full text of their Business Roundtable letter to DHS about work visas and the list of signatories:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/brt.org/archive/letters/Immigration...
Big companies like Apple, JP Morgan, Blackrock, Coca Cola, Visa, Verizon and dozens of others are also very negatively impacted.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/23/news/companies/business-rou...
Full text of their Business Roundtable letter to DHS about work visas and the list of signatories:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/brt.org/archive/letters/Immigration...
Apple appears to be unaffected:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re...
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re...
[deleted]
For the sake of all the great skilled people from India who have been on H1B for decades, Congress really need to fix the green card attribution problem: there’s no reason why a person born in India has to wait 10 years to get a green card when a French person can have one in 18-36 months.
Sure there is a reason - diversity. The “no country can get more than 5% of immigrant visa in any given year”, was done so that large countries don’t dominate the immigrant mix.
Same reason you can’t get a green card through the lottery if your from Canada - it’s only open to under-represented countries.
Same reason you can’t get a green card through the lottery if your from Canada - it’s only open to under-represented countries.
Is there any reason why you would want diversity? On its face Indians wouldn't be less valuable per capita than inhabitants of some small Pacific island just because there are more Indians alive. In fact if you believe in normal distributions then the best Indians would be better than almost any other country because there are more Indians to draw from.
Yes,
If you only receive immigration from only one country, it is easier for these newcomers to associate and become a political force that can change your status quo. Whereas if immigration is diverse, this situation is more complicated.
If you only receive immigration from only one country, it is easier for these newcomers to associate and become a political force that can change your status quo. Whereas if immigration is diverse, this situation is more complicated.
I don't think this comment deserves to be dismissed so readily. Although I shudder to think about the xenophobia that could potentially motivate thinking along these lines, it is very much a fact that plenty of people have such concerns, and as such it is an important reason to enact barriers and one that I hadn't thought of before.
Are there any historical examples of large numbers of immigrants politically changing the country they immigrated to?
Every country in the Western hemisphere? India/Pakistan until the mid-20th century and under earlier Muslim rule? The entire Mediterranean under Rome? China after Khan?
This reminds me of an episode during my senior year of high school Model UN where a hapless delegate for Germany in the security council stood up and started on with a straight face "Germany has never invaded another country..." before being drowned out by peals of laughter and sitting down red-faced.
Umvi wasn't claiming that there were no examples, they were asking for examples.
Hawaii. Texas.
[deleted]
Texas Revolution?
Israël?
The USA?
All of South America?
>Hawaii
>Texas
>USA
>All of South America?
All of the Americas?
That sort of thing could honestly be in the minds of the Powers that Be.
The positive spin for diversity in where your immigrants come from is that it is better for the culture if the participants have diverse backgrounds.
>Texas
>USA
>All of South America?
All of the Americas?
That sort of thing could honestly be in the minds of the Powers that Be.
The positive spin for diversity in where your immigrants come from is that it is better for the culture if the participants have diverse backgrounds.
Even if you're right, I don't think people want a system that benefits a group of people just because they have a bigger population than others. It's the same reason why diversity quotas are pushed for, because we can't have companies only hiring or promoting into leadership positions people who happen to look like them. It is in line with those principles that we would not want to have a system where Indians are being severely advantaged compared to other minorities just because they have a huge population.
>Even if you're right, I don't think people want a system that benefits a group of people just because they have a bigger population than others.
This does not make much sense. People get green cards, not countries. Imagine if you were at the DMV and each region of your city had its own queue. People coming from the smaller parts leave in 5 minutes, and people hailing from the larger parts have to wait 8 hours for their turn. It's their fault for living in a more populous place?
What did the people in the smaller areas do to deserve their faster queue compared to others, except being born at a certain place?
Work visas should be about the person who passes the interview, is selected and is able to hold said job.
This does not make much sense. People get green cards, not countries. Imagine if you were at the DMV and each region of your city had its own queue. People coming from the smaller parts leave in 5 minutes, and people hailing from the larger parts have to wait 8 hours for their turn. It's their fault for living in a more populous place?
What did the people in the smaller areas do to deserve their faster queue compared to others, except being born at a certain place?
Work visas should be about the person who passes the interview, is selected and is able to hold said job.
That sounds nice and all but the DMV analogy does not hold up. Think about if there were no limits by country population, India has more people and therefore the most applicants, so we would be mainly giving limited numbers of work visas to Indians while others would have no chance.
Imagine if there was a company with a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area. If that makes you cringe, you should have the same reaction regarding this.
Diversity = various countries/peoples around the world getting a fair chance
Not diversity = Only Indians get work visas
Imagine if there was a company with a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area. If that makes you cringe, you should have the same reaction regarding this.
Diversity = various countries/peoples around the world getting a fair chance
Not diversity = Only Indians get work visas
>a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area
If 90% of a town is white and 10% is black, 9:1 is a fair ratio for executive boards on average. Anything else would mean that the probability of a person holding a board position given their race would be different for different races. Imagine if every company in Mombasa was required to have an even split between white and black: being born white would guarantee you any job you wanted because you would be competing with less than 1% of the population, while in contrast every other ethnicity would be crowded in to half the number of jobs. In fact if racial quotas were instituted in Kenya and every race was given the same percent quota, 98% of Kenyans would be forced to be unemployed.
If 90% of a town is white and 10% is black, 9:1 is a fair ratio for executive boards on average. Anything else would mean that the probability of a person holding a board position given their race would be different for different races. Imagine if every company in Mombasa was required to have an even split between white and black: being born white would guarantee you any job you wanted because you would be competing with less than 1% of the population, while in contrast every other ethnicity would be crowded in to half the number of jobs. In fact if racial quotas were instituted in Kenya and every race was given the same percent quota, 98% of Kenyans would be forced to be unemployed.
By all means you're right and I would agree. It's just that, if we are going to go with the diversity thing, we should uphold it equally and fairly. There is no avoiding natural majorities where we can't help it. But in the realm of green cards and work visas where they are limited and we CAN help it, I think avoiding incentivizing or allowing for majorities to form that will become problematic(and then too big to be helped later on) is a good thing.
> Is there any reason why you would want diversity?
Diversity is generally considered a positive thing for companies and countries. Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that.
Diversity is generally considered a positive thing for companies and countries. Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that.
>Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that.
The US sets US law to serve US interests, so I don't see how that would be a motivation.
The US sets US law to serve US interests, so I don't see how that would be a motivation.
Diversity in the green card pool is not the same as diversity of who lives in the country or works at a company.
This underlies an assumption that the people from one country are generally homogeneous.
India is easily the most internally diverse country in the world. There is also the fact, that literally 15% of the world's population resides here.
The current "diversity" heuristic is too naive to promote any real diversity.
India is easily the most internally diverse country in the world. There is also the fact, that literally 15% of the world's population resides here.
The current "diversity" heuristic is too naive to promote any real diversity.
Maybe, maybe not, but thats a different battle altogether, and right now a huge portion of American politics revolve around this definition of diversity, and if it didn't, it's likely immigration would get stricter, not looser.
I'm Indian and I find that claim hard to believe. Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous, unless you want to say everyone who speaks a different language is different in any way other than the language (mostly not;).
It is not just language. It is skin color (some are fair skinned like Europeans, some are dark skinned like Africans), food (North and South Indian food are very different), clothes, religion (which is very important in India), income levels (extreme poverty as well as extreme wealth), education (most of the country is illiterate, but there also world-class institutions such as IITs, culture (India has higher female participation in the workforce, in IT at least, that the US, yet, in certain villages there is "honor killings" and so on.) Yes, India is absolutely the most diverse country in the world, and it is many times more diverse than the US.
Double bell curves != diversity
Country caps are based on country of birth (with some exceptions that don't apply to most people). From that standpoint, US-born people are actually very heterogenous relative to other large countries, and the same applies to Canada-born people.
Why do you think India is called a subcontinent?
>Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous
That's only in the media and big cities.
>Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous
That's only in the media and big cities.
> The “no country can get more than 5% of immigrant visa in any given year”, was done so that large countries don’t dominate the immigrant mix.
It was done so that countries with large numbers of eligible immigrants don't dominate the immigrant mix in any category (it's per category, not global), which is a really stupid idea (it systematically prevents legal supply and demand from aligning, even as far as they could within the aggregate limit, by artificial restriction, which as anyone whose studied price controls know, creates illegality.)
It was done so that countries with large numbers of eligible immigrants don't dominate the immigrant mix in any category (it's per category, not global), which is a really stupid idea (it systematically prevents legal supply and demand from aligning, even as far as they could within the aggregate limit, by artificial restriction, which as anyone whose studied price controls know, creates illegality.)
Supply and demand? I don’t think are many people that think who should immigrate to the US should happen the same way people buy cars or other consumer goods.
It was a more subtle way of restricting immigration from "undesirable" countries.
https://scholars.org/brief/how-legacies-racism-persist-us-im...
US immigration law has always been racist.
https://scholars.org/brief/how-legacies-racism-persist-us-im...
US immigration law has always been racist.
Compare number of applicants per year from India (250K H1 + some amount L1) to the green card caps (140K). And their population growth is still positive (>1% year).
Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.)
There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that.
Sure, 7% cap for a country that makes 17% of the world seems a bit unfair. But increasing it to the fair 17% or even to unfair 100% will still be peanuts in the long run. The reality is that a person born in India is being screwed not as much by bias in immigration policies but only by other persons born in India.
Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.)
There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that.
Sure, 7% cap for a country that makes 17% of the world seems a bit unfair. But increasing it to the fair 17% or even to unfair 100% will still be peanuts in the long run. The reality is that a person born in India is being screwed not as much by bias in immigration policies but only by other persons born in India.
>Compare number of applicants per year from India (250K H1 + some amount L1) to the green card caps (140K). And their population growth is still positive (>1% year).
This is not correct. The 250k includes people who got their first H1B in 2006 till date but have to renew every 3 years. Those are work visa renewals while they wait. The yearly demand is much lower. There is a 85K cap on all new H1Bs. Only 70% go to tech sector. However some governments and nonprofits are excluded from the cap, but the nowhere as high as 250k. Which is why the rest of your comment is wrong.
>Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.)
>There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that.
Not true again. After 8 to 10 years it will fix itself because the system is first come first served. i.e If a French or German person apply on January 1 2029, they will get their GC before everyone from India that applied after Jan 1 2029.
Actually that would be true even today if the law passes. The French citizen who applies on Jan 1 2020 will get his gc before the Indian citizen who applies on Jan 2, 2020. It's just that if the law passes, they won't get to cut ahead to directly in front of the line, before people waiting since 2009.
It's like going to a DMV. Regardless of how bad the crowd is or where you drove from, you get a token number and no one that came after you gets a GC before you can. The initial wait for some will be high initially because there are people waiting for a long time.
This is not correct. The 250k includes people who got their first H1B in 2006 till date but have to renew every 3 years. Those are work visa renewals while they wait. The yearly demand is much lower. There is a 85K cap on all new H1Bs. Only 70% go to tech sector. However some governments and nonprofits are excluded from the cap, but the nowhere as high as 250k. Which is why the rest of your comment is wrong.
>Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.)
>There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that.
Not true again. After 8 to 10 years it will fix itself because the system is first come first served. i.e If a French or German person apply on January 1 2029, they will get their GC before everyone from India that applied after Jan 1 2029.
Actually that would be true even today if the law passes. The French citizen who applies on Jan 1 2020 will get his gc before the Indian citizen who applies on Jan 2, 2020. It's just that if the law passes, they won't get to cut ahead to directly in front of the line, before people waiting since 2009.
It's like going to a DMV. Regardless of how bad the crowd is or where you drove from, you get a token number and no one that came after you gets a GC before you can. The initial wait for some will be high initially because there are people waiting for a long time.
> After 8 to 10 years it will fix itself
100% of the total cap is used every year. The cap is not changing, the number of applicants is not changing (grows, actually), so the backlog will keep growing with no change at all. How exactly the cap is allocated to nationalities is irrelevant.
You can write a simple simulation of a DMV office that gets more new people every day than it can serve per day, and prove that the line grows indefinitely regardless if it's FIFO or capped or whatever.
The only true fix to the indefinite growth of wait time is to change the spammable lottery/FIFO system to something like merit-based (like Canada) or salary auction, which grants all the cap to highest scored people and rejects everyone else.
100% of the total cap is used every year. The cap is not changing, the number of applicants is not changing (grows, actually), so the backlog will keep growing with no change at all. How exactly the cap is allocated to nationalities is irrelevant.
You can write a simple simulation of a DMV office that gets more new people every day than it can serve per day, and prove that the line grows indefinitely regardless if it's FIFO or capped or whatever.
The only true fix to the indefinite growth of wait time is to change the spammable lottery/FIFO system to something like merit-based (like Canada) or salary auction, which grants all the cap to highest scored people and rejects everyone else.
> How exactly the cap is allocated to nationalities is irrelevant.
It's very relevant actually. It drives hiring decisions - plenty of reasons to hire people born in India (and to some extent China) because they won't get full employment rights for a long time. And this has a feedback loop (the longer the wait time for some people, the greater the incentive to seek and hire those people). This is actually bad for people born anywhere else and want to find a job here, including US-born.
There can be no "true fix" because the legislative process involves compromise. There was plenty of criticism of the 2013 Senate bill (S. 744) for example. Perhaps there will be another such attempt a decade from now, but it's stupid to wait for speculative future compromises instead of fixing one issue at a time.
In any case, fixing the country cap issue is not incompatible with any of the points based proposals - AFAIK Canada does not make people wait longer based on where they were born.
It's very relevant actually. It drives hiring decisions - plenty of reasons to hire people born in India (and to some extent China) because they won't get full employment rights for a long time. And this has a feedback loop (the longer the wait time for some people, the greater the incentive to seek and hire those people). This is actually bad for people born anywhere else and want to find a job here, including US-born.
There can be no "true fix" because the legislative process involves compromise. There was plenty of criticism of the 2013 Senate bill (S. 744) for example. Perhaps there will be another such attempt a decade from now, but it's stupid to wait for speculative future compromises instead of fixing one issue at a time.
In any case, fixing the country cap issue is not incompatible with any of the points based proposals - AFAIK Canada does not make people wait longer based on where they were born.
This has been fixed. French people won't get any new green cards.
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/08/07/house-passes-zoe-lo...
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/08/07/house-passes-zoe-lo...
This is such a terrible "fix".
“For the next 10 years, more than 90 percent of the employment-based green card will go to citizens of one country”
This is so unfair to citizens of other countries.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Indian immigrants. What they've been through is not tenable in the slightest. I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
“For the next 10 years, more than 90 percent of the employment-based green card will go to citizens of one country”
This is so unfair to citizens of other countries.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Indian immigrants. What they've been through is not tenable in the slightest. I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
What? This fix literally makes everyone equal.
Why should a person get priority just because they are from a certain country?
Instead, everyone should be treated exactly the same.
There is a saying about how treating people equally, looks like oppression to the people who were at the top before.
Why should a person get priority just because they are from a certain country?
Instead, everyone should be treated exactly the same.
There is a saying about how treating people equally, looks like oppression to the people who were at the top before.
You made too many assumptions about me. I'm not at the top. I'm not even from the US.
>This is so unfair to citizens of other countries.
Not sure how it's unfair. The bill has a clause that anyone currently waiting will not be impacted.
>I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
Not sure if you're serious. Even adding a few new green cards is politically impossible in the current climate. Just imagine the attack ads on TV for the next election.
Not sure how it's unfair. The bill has a clause that anyone currently waiting will not be impacted.
>I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
Not sure if you're serious. Even adding a few new green cards is politically impossible in the current climate. Just imagine the attack ads on TV for the next election.
Yes. I'm at least half serious.
1. The system is unfair in the first place -- Indian's quota is not in proportion to their population.
2. The bill tries to flush the queue, that leads to:
2.1 The perpetuation of this unfair system.
2.2 Other people who will still use this system get unfairly treated.
I wish is not passed. But seems to have a lot of support:
https://www.lanereport.com/115492/2019/07/the-bottom-line-bu...
Really wonder who thought this was a great idea.
https://www.lanereport.com/115492/2019/07/the-bottom-line-bu...
Really wonder who thought this was a great idea.
In a zero-sum situation, it is important to have an equitable distribution of pain.
Of course the cap should be abolished altogether, but while it exists the system is deeply unjust.
Of course the cap should be abolished altogether, but while it exists the system is deeply unjust.
It's nowhere close to actually becoming law.
The El Paso shooter mentioned that proposed law in his manifesto as letting in many more new foreign workers after listening to fake news from Fox News and Breitbart, when it does nothing of that sort. Also that the Senate passed it.
The last thing we want is more bad information.
The El Paso shooter mentioned that proposed law in his manifesto as letting in many more new foreign workers after listening to fake news from Fox News and Breitbart, when it does nothing of that sort. Also that the Senate passed it.
The last thing we want is more bad information.
Erm the House passed the bill but it's unlikely to pass the Senate and even if it did I'd expect Trump to veto it.
A lot of folks are -- often justly -- saying that we should be training more Americans for some of these jobs.
I worked for some time in a professional masters program that mostly has non-US enrollment, despite being in flyover land. To complete it costs a fair bit, though it's lower-priced than similar such programs on the coasts, and when you get out especially if you're an American student you're often looking at $90k+ for starting salary (depends on a few factors). It's a very remunerative field.
But we just can't get many US students in! We've been trying to figure it out. US students mainly come in when they've reached a point at their company where they have a manager who says, You need these additional skills -- go to school to get them, and we'll pay. I'm not talking "learn JavaScript library blah", I'm talking stochastic calculus. The school part really is helpful because there's a ton of theory that you don't learn by doing the practical applications.
US citizen grads are placed so fast. There's no such thing as a sure bet, but this grad program is a high-expected-value bet. And yet we just... can't... get... Americans.
I think it's the math. So many Americans are just scared of math. Some of our Chinese students "know" they're "just bad at math" but they don't see that as a particular obstacle; just need to study harder. Americans tend to see it as an inborn anatomical characteristic or something. But also it's the cost of a master's after taking on the crushing load of undergrad debt. Some of our students got their bachelors degrees for free in their home countries & then just had to float the cost of this masters, which is less tuition-wise than 3 years of state college.
There are more structural problems than just "companies, you should grow your own talent". I agree companies should do more: but if we really wanted a US society that fostered technical excellence, we could make sure our schools did that. We've made sure our schools foster football excellence, for instance.
And to get back to the direct topic: we're seeing a ton of RFEs for our grads, and there is no other masters' program that does this stuff within a state and a half of us. You've got to drive 8 hours to get to the next one.
I worked for some time in a professional masters program that mostly has non-US enrollment, despite being in flyover land. To complete it costs a fair bit, though it's lower-priced than similar such programs on the coasts, and when you get out especially if you're an American student you're often looking at $90k+ for starting salary (depends on a few factors). It's a very remunerative field.
But we just can't get many US students in! We've been trying to figure it out. US students mainly come in when they've reached a point at their company where they have a manager who says, You need these additional skills -- go to school to get them, and we'll pay. I'm not talking "learn JavaScript library blah", I'm talking stochastic calculus. The school part really is helpful because there's a ton of theory that you don't learn by doing the practical applications.
US citizen grads are placed so fast. There's no such thing as a sure bet, but this grad program is a high-expected-value bet. And yet we just... can't... get... Americans.
I think it's the math. So many Americans are just scared of math. Some of our Chinese students "know" they're "just bad at math" but they don't see that as a particular obstacle; just need to study harder. Americans tend to see it as an inborn anatomical characteristic or something. But also it's the cost of a master's after taking on the crushing load of undergrad debt. Some of our students got their bachelors degrees for free in their home countries & then just had to float the cost of this masters, which is less tuition-wise than 3 years of state college.
There are more structural problems than just "companies, you should grow your own talent". I agree companies should do more: but if we really wanted a US society that fostered technical excellence, we could make sure our schools did that. We've made sure our schools foster football excellence, for instance.
And to get back to the direct topic: we're seeing a ton of RFEs for our grads, and there is no other masters' program that does this stuff within a state and a half of us. You've got to drive 8 hours to get to the next one.
You have brought up something that most Americans don't want to hear i.e. "The Truth"! I have worked for well over a decade in the US (but i did not study there) and had always wondered about the dearth of "Americans" in the Tech. Industry. Here is my blunt assessment;
1) Your entire culture/society has turned away from STEM fields. Everybody is only interested in making money via Media/Management/Finance and any other way to "get rich quick". The pursuit of knowledge is gone. This is quite sad given that your previous generations did much to develop and spread scientific temper throughout the world.
2) Americans also suffer from major self-entitlement. In a global world, the fact that your previous generations were scientific top-dogs does not guarantee you the same status without working for it. You have to compete and prove yourselves worthy. So when the industry brings them face-to-face with reality they lose heart and start blaming everybody else for their predicament.
3) Americans are averse to hard-work. Here the Chinese/Indians wipe the floor with them. It is a standard joke in the Tech. Industry that while the Chinese/Indians do the actual work, the Americans are only good for bullshitting in Management/Marketing/Sales roles. Whatever happened to the "American Work Ethic"?
4) It is now a truism that much of the Tech Industry work has been "commoditized" and the barrier to entry has gotten lower. Most workers are mere "Craftsmen" rather than "Engineers/Scientists". For example, i have worked alongside PhDs in Physics/Mathematics/Biology etc. and their output was comparable to mine (no PhD) simply because the domain did not need their specialization. Most of the Software Industry is like this.
I just wish that the current/future generation of Americans would take a good hard look at themselves and make the necessary changes to their society to build themselves up again instead of blaming "immigrants" and everybody else.
1) Your entire culture/society has turned away from STEM fields. Everybody is only interested in making money via Media/Management/Finance and any other way to "get rich quick". The pursuit of knowledge is gone. This is quite sad given that your previous generations did much to develop and spread scientific temper throughout the world.
2) Americans also suffer from major self-entitlement. In a global world, the fact that your previous generations were scientific top-dogs does not guarantee you the same status without working for it. You have to compete and prove yourselves worthy. So when the industry brings them face-to-face with reality they lose heart and start blaming everybody else for their predicament.
3) Americans are averse to hard-work. Here the Chinese/Indians wipe the floor with them. It is a standard joke in the Tech. Industry that while the Chinese/Indians do the actual work, the Americans are only good for bullshitting in Management/Marketing/Sales roles. Whatever happened to the "American Work Ethic"?
4) It is now a truism that much of the Tech Industry work has been "commoditized" and the barrier to entry has gotten lower. Most workers are mere "Craftsmen" rather than "Engineers/Scientists". For example, i have worked alongside PhDs in Physics/Mathematics/Biology etc. and their output was comparable to mine (no PhD) simply because the domain did not need their specialization. Most of the Software Industry is like this.
I just wish that the current/future generation of Americans would take a good hard look at themselves and make the necessary changes to their society to build themselves up again instead of blaming "immigrants" and everybody else.
Unfortunately, you have just described the stereotypical American engineer and the main reason why managers here from other countries, such as India and China, will rarely hire an American for a domestic position. I can tell you, first hand, this stereotype is not durable nor applicable. I agree, most American-born students tend to go towards the 'soft' skills, such as marketing or sales. But many people I'll also give you, Americans aren't the best at rote learning, ie., memorizing texts. I'm not going conclude by saying American-born engineers are getting maligned, only those critical points you allege as being endemic to US engineers are applicable to engineers everywhere.
My intent was to shine a spotlight on a specific mindset (whether real or imagined, the external effect is the same) which affects Engineers/Management in the Tech. Industry. One has to face realities on the ground whether one likes it or not.
Note that what i described above exists in the "middle strata" i.e. the vast majority of work/jobs which have been commoditized and thus has a lower barrier to entry. As an example, i may consider myself as an experienced super-duper "Systems Programmer"(limited jobs) but given that the number of jobs in "Web Development" are at-least a few orders of magnitude greater than in "Systems Development", i would need to learn Web Technologies and compete with kids half my age if i want to earn a salary and keep a roof over my head. Generalize this to competing with developers throughout the world and i have a major problem. Therefore in order to make myself more attractive to clients i need to bring lots more to the table like Experience, Hardwork, Humble mentality, Willingness to learn and Getting things done. The necessary change has to come from within. No amount of blaming H1Bs or others is going to help me.
Incidentally, the above viewpoints were explained to me by a Microsoft HR person himself! It came as a shock initially but over time i have come to accept it and learned to change my expectations.
Note that what i described above exists in the "middle strata" i.e. the vast majority of work/jobs which have been commoditized and thus has a lower barrier to entry. As an example, i may consider myself as an experienced super-duper "Systems Programmer"(limited jobs) but given that the number of jobs in "Web Development" are at-least a few orders of magnitude greater than in "Systems Development", i would need to learn Web Technologies and compete with kids half my age if i want to earn a salary and keep a roof over my head. Generalize this to competing with developers throughout the world and i have a major problem. Therefore in order to make myself more attractive to clients i need to bring lots more to the table like Experience, Hardwork, Humble mentality, Willingness to learn and Getting things done. The necessary change has to come from within. No amount of blaming H1Bs or others is going to help me.
Incidentally, the above viewpoints were explained to me by a Microsoft HR person himself! It came as a shock initially but over time i have come to accept it and learned to change my expectations.
>> RFE
I didn't know what RFE is, posting it for other readers as well.
USCIS makes an inquiry called a request for evidence, or RFE, when they require additional evidence to make a decision on a H1B case. ... An RFE can be for information about either the beneficiary or the petitioner, or both. After receiving an RFE, you have up to 90 days to submit documents proving your case.
I didn't know what RFE is, posting it for other readers as well.
USCIS makes an inquiry called a request for evidence, or RFE, when they require additional evidence to make a decision on a H1B case. ... An RFE can be for information about either the beneficiary or the petitioner, or both. After receiving an RFE, you have up to 90 days to submit documents proving your case.
What program is this?
At a guess: Financial Math MSc at UChicago - finance is the only field both requiring stochastic calculus and being able to pay well for it. Or possibly the same programme in Minnesota or Urbana-Champaign.
Cool TY!
One of the questions that appears to be at the heart of the H1-B visas - does rank and file software development still meet the criteria for a specialty occupation?
From https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker... , one of the following must be true for it to be considered a specialty occupation:
> Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position
> The degree requirement for the job is common to the industry or the job is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree
> The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position
> The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree.
With today's world of bootcamps for entry level software development being more and more common - I really wonder if this is still the case. A bachelors degree is helpful... it signals that a person is willing to work on a multi year program to complete something that has a wide range of requirements... but it's not essential. I work with a person who has a degree in physics and another who went from truck driver to registered nurse to working on medical records software.
Digging into this question, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocume... - 70% of all H1-B visas are going to computer related occupations.
From https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker... , one of the following must be true for it to be considered a specialty occupation:
> Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position
> The degree requirement for the job is common to the industry or the job is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree
> The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position
> The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree.
With today's world of bootcamps for entry level software development being more and more common - I really wonder if this is still the case. A bachelors degree is helpful... it signals that a person is willing to work on a multi year program to complete something that has a wide range of requirements... but it's not essential. I work with a person who has a degree in physics and another who went from truck driver to registered nurse to working on medical records software.
Digging into this question, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocume... - 70% of all H1-B visas are going to computer related occupations.
Plenty of wiggle room with "normal", "so common to the industry", "usually", etc. Also keep in mind - at most companies, bootcamp grads often join at a lower/different job title than those with a Bachelors in CS.
At Infosys, upwards of 90% of employees have a bachelors degree or higher. I’m not going to say that a bachelors degree is a requirement... but most employees have one.
I've been on H1B numerous times at big and small companies. Each time they used my immigration status as leverage to pressure me to take increasingly bad deals and are somehow surprised when I quit.
I would consider the bulk of H1B to be about suppression of worker rights (and salary)
I now remote consult from my home country. I still get employers who figure they should pay me less since I live in a cheap country but it's much easier to negotiate when they can't kick me out of the country.
I would consider the bulk of H1B to be about suppression of worker rights (and salary)
I now remote consult from my home country. I still get employers who figure they should pay me less since I live in a cheap country but it's much easier to negotiate when they can't kick me out of the country.
It really is the worst of all immigration outcomes for all but the employer.
You come into the US, but entirely as a kind of guest worker. You demonstrate you have great skills and work ethic, but there’s no path to permanent residency or citizenship. The relationship turns exploitative. So you go back home and do great things there instead of here in the US.
We could have had a smart, productive addition to the American workforce through a more thoughtful approach to immigration. Instead we gave you up to your home country. Your home gain a skilled and experienced knowledge worker bolstered with your experience at a US tech giant, we cycle in the next H1B to repeat the cycle.
You come into the US, but entirely as a kind of guest worker. You demonstrate you have great skills and work ethic, but there’s no path to permanent residency or citizenship. The relationship turns exploitative. So you go back home and do great things there instead of here in the US.
We could have had a smart, productive addition to the American workforce through a more thoughtful approach to immigration. Instead we gave you up to your home country. Your home gain a skilled and experienced knowledge worker bolstered with your experience at a US tech giant, we cycle in the next H1B to repeat the cycle.
People in the US seem hostile to switching to a Canadian or Australian style immigration because each worker will only be able to bring their spouse and kids, not their entire extended family (including grandparents, cousins, etc) for every immigration granted like it currently is in the US. Instead it should be more lax on the front end, the advanced workers account for a significantly higher percentage of Canadian immigrants than the US (something like 30 vs 60%) which is how it should be.
Any country that doesn't make it easy for the world's best and brightest to come is missing out and having gone through the US immigration process there is so much low hanging fruit to fix things without adding any pressure to the system.
The US immigration system is surprisingly liberal but in the wrong places.
Any country that doesn't make it easy for the world's best and brightest to come is missing out and having gone through the US immigration process there is so much low hanging fruit to fix things without adding any pressure to the system.
The US immigration system is surprisingly liberal but in the wrong places.
> People in the US seem hostile to switching to a Canadian or Australian style immigration because each worker will only be able to bring their spouse and kids, not their entire extended family (including grandparents, cousins, etc) for every immigration granted like it currently is in the US.
WTF are you talking about? Workers can only bring their spouse and unmarried children under 21[1]. Even citizens and permanent residents can only sponsor their parents, children and siblings for immigration[2], not grandparents and cousins.
[1] https://www.immihelp.com/h4-dependent-visa/
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sponsoring-family-me...
WTF are you talking about? Workers can only bring their spouse and unmarried children under 21[1]. Even citizens and permanent residents can only sponsor their parents, children and siblings for immigration[2], not grandparents and cousins.
[1] https://www.immihelp.com/h4-dependent-visa/
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sponsoring-family-me...
It's called chain migration and it's well known that you can go beyond just siblings, parents, and children:
> As a general rule, it is impossible to obtain U.S. green cards for one’s grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and more extended relations – unless you can create a chain of relationships so that a more immediate family member can petition for them. For example, instead of petitioning for a grandparent, a U.S. citizen could petition for his or her parents; and they could, after receiving a green card and eventually U.S. citizenship, petition for their parents (your grandparents).
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/who-is-e...
The numbers fully support this too as I mentioned there are far more skilled workers with Visas and green cards vs family members/relatives in Canada than the US:
> Contrary to conventional thinking, it could be argued the U.S. system is more “compassionate” than Canada’s. Almost seven in 10 of those who settle lawfully in the U.S. are close relatives of previous immigrants. Each U.S. immigrant on average sponsors 3.5 family members.
> Canada, meanwhile, restricts “family reunification” immigrants to about one in five. Canada mostly picks immigrants to boost economic expansion. Two of three immigrants are brought in because of their skills and education. Trump’s plan, created by son-in-law Jared Kushner, copies Canada’s reasoning.
US = 70% family/relatives, Canada = 70% skilled workers
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-wha...
Our immigrant communities are famously successful too. In large immigrant communities like Brampton outside of Toronto, Hindus often rank #1 in income per capita, beating out Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. The Chinese communities in Richmond Hill, Markham, and Mississauga are also very successful. You can't drive through those neighbourhoods without seeing Mercedes and Teslas parked everywhere.
> As a general rule, it is impossible to obtain U.S. green cards for one’s grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and more extended relations – unless you can create a chain of relationships so that a more immediate family member can petition for them. For example, instead of petitioning for a grandparent, a U.S. citizen could petition for his or her parents; and they could, after receiving a green card and eventually U.S. citizenship, petition for their parents (your grandparents).
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/who-is-e...
The numbers fully support this too as I mentioned there are far more skilled workers with Visas and green cards vs family members/relatives in Canada than the US:
> Contrary to conventional thinking, it could be argued the U.S. system is more “compassionate” than Canada’s. Almost seven in 10 of those who settle lawfully in the U.S. are close relatives of previous immigrants. Each U.S. immigrant on average sponsors 3.5 family members.
> Canada, meanwhile, restricts “family reunification” immigrants to about one in five. Canada mostly picks immigrants to boost economic expansion. Two of three immigrants are brought in because of their skills and education. Trump’s plan, created by son-in-law Jared Kushner, copies Canada’s reasoning.
US = 70% family/relatives, Canada = 70% skilled workers
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-wha...
Our immigrant communities are famously successful too. In large immigrant communities like Brampton outside of Toronto, Hindus often rank #1 in income per capita, beating out Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. The Chinese communities in Richmond Hill, Markham, and Mississauga are also very successful. You can't drive through those neighbourhoods without seeing Mercedes and Teslas parked everywhere.
> You demonstrate you have great skills and work ethic, but there’s no path to permanent residency or citizenship
That isn't true with the H1B. You are allowed to apply for permanent residency while you have it.
That isn't true with the H1B. You are allowed to apply for permanent residency while you have it.
Most of the lawbreaking and shady activity related to H-1B visas seems to happen when there is this sort of third-party arrangement, where these companies bring workers in, and then contract them out to other workplaces (often through a chain of contracts via other intermediaries).
From that sense, it's good to scrutinize these so that genuine applications have a better shot at the lottery.
From that sense, it's good to scrutinize these so that genuine applications have a better shot at the lottery.
Agreed - I wish they were making it easier on the legit direct hire folks, and much much harder on these third party placers.
The problem is, the third party placers are playing a numbers game. No individual is critical in their H1B apps, they just need to have 22% approved so they can fill their body slots.
The smaller legit direct hire firm has often invested a lot in a potential H1B usually after really trying very hard to get non visa folks in. The denials there are brutal.
The problem is, the third party placers are playing a numbers game. No individual is critical in their H1B apps, they just need to have 22% approved so they can fill their body slots.
The smaller legit direct hire firm has often invested a lot in a potential H1B usually after really trying very hard to get non visa folks in. The denials there are brutal.
Good. The system is rigged against local workers in favor of global corporations.
In addition to depressing wages this corrupt system sucks for the H1B workers too. They can't earn more at another company unless they return to their home countries and reapply to the system all over again. Which is absurd.
In addition to depressing wages this corrupt system sucks for the H1B workers too. They can't earn more at another company unless they return to their home countries and reapply to the system all over again. Which is absurd.
How long until executive jobs are offshored as well? What stops that from happening 10 years after many of the skilled labor jobs are offshored
The only barrier I see is the capital to create competing startups, but places like China may be well on the way to doing a “head transplant” on much of the work they have already been doing.
Discuss, pro / con?
The only barrier I see is the capital to create competing startups, but places like China may be well on the way to doing a “head transplant” on much of the work they have already been doing.
Discuss, pro / con?
The article isn't talking about denials for FAANG or other reputable companies.
All the companies in the article are well-known abusers of the H1B visa, and a primary reason why Indians using the system as intended at top companies have the huge Green Card backlog.
You'll find endless discussions about those companies dating way before Trump.
All the companies in the article are well-known abusers of the H1B visa, and a primary reason why Indians using the system as intended at top companies have the huge Green Card backlog.
You'll find endless discussions about those companies dating way before Trump.
This sounds like a good thing to me, as long as the visa denials are targeting the low-skilled Indian coders. I've been at companies where we contracted with Infosys, Larsen and Toubro, and some other Indian shops. We ended up having guys in our office who couldn't speak English, lacked an understanding of basic fundamentals (they've never used source control of any kind or write 2000 line Java methods). Ultimately they delivered garbage and it gave IT a bad rep at the company. But we kept them on the payroll to "cut costs". The contracting companies literally don't give a shit (senior managers and directors would get ball game tickets and other perks under the table), and management on our side would hold these jobs for these incompetent coders instead of qualified local talent.
How did they get the project in the first place, did you team in the US vet the Indian team before signing the contract?
There’s usually an on-site account manager who hooks up the team in the US with either an offshore team or Indian coders that work for the contracting company who are already in the US.
The interviews are a scam. You interview a person who seems decent but someone else will show up in their place. I had one interview where the person obviously wasn’t the one coding. He couldn’t actually describe what his code does. :)
Typically management in these companies aren’t technical folks, and they have no idea what to look for.
The interviews are a scam. You interview a person who seems decent but someone else will show up in their place. I had one interview where the person obviously wasn’t the one coding. He couldn’t actually describe what his code does. :)
Typically management in these companies aren’t technical folks, and they have no idea what to look for.
Percentage doesn't tell me much. If it's just a percent thing, they can just send through more applications. 10% can be higher than 90%. Without the actual numbers, the data is meaningless.
It is good thing overall. If a resource becomes more scarce (programmers in this case) companies learn to use it in more effective ways.
In my experience, being on a team with shrinking headcount due to difficulty hiring is not fun:
- Quality gets cut before features.
- Engineers are yanked and shuffled from one urgent priority to another with no sense of ownership and no time for craftsmanship, leading to garbage codebases.
- Mentorship and development fall by the wayside, making it even more important to get senior talent from outside, yet we still don't.
- Management eventually spins up a team in a more favorable country, which leads to a lot of annoying off-hours videoconferencing at best, possibly even loss of status as the "center of gravity" for your area.
- They company starts looking downmarket for labor, giving you less competent coworkers.
- Higher pay is directly offset by higher likelihood of a layoff; you shuffle all the excess into your emergency fund just to maintain the same level of security.
- Quality gets cut before features.
- Engineers are yanked and shuffled from one urgent priority to another with no sense of ownership and no time for craftsmanship, leading to garbage codebases.
- Mentorship and development fall by the wayside, making it even more important to get senior talent from outside, yet we still don't.
- Management eventually spins up a team in a more favorable country, which leads to a lot of annoying off-hours videoconferencing at best, possibly even loss of status as the "center of gravity" for your area.
- They company starts looking downmarket for labor, giving you less competent coworkers.
- Higher pay is directly offset by higher likelihood of a layoff; you shuffle all the excess into your emergency fund just to maintain the same level of security.
Good for software engineers, bad for those hiring them.
Just like a scarcity of doctors is good for doctors, but bad for patients.
If the USA had only one doctor, we would't magically be able to treat everyone by using the one doctor "more efficiently", rather only the super rich would get treatment.
Just like a scarcity of doctors is good for doctors, but bad for patients.
If the USA had only one doctor, we would't magically be able to treat everyone by using the one doctor "more efficiently", rather only the super rich would get treatment.
Doctors cannot be easily offshored to another office or given 100% remote work. Software can, and it's happening, article mentions it at the very end. If it happened to manufacturing and factories, it could even more easily happen to software.
Doctors (and also lawyers) are replaced by technology as we speak. Now it is time for programmers to follow and it would be easier as there is less regulation involved then in case of doctors.
So not all bad.
So not all bad.
That's what I don't understand. A doctor earns an average salary of say, $300,000, while a programmer building software that automates the job of a doctor earns an average salary of $75-100,000.
The value of the programmers is equal to all the people their programs replace, but yet, they are paid less than a single one of the individuals they replace.
Our society doesn't properly value programmers. If it did, there wouldn't be an H1-B issue. There are more Americans who want to be doctors than America will legally allow to exist. There's no cap on how many programmers there can be, yet America throws its hands up in the air wondering why.
The answer is obvious: America doesn't value programmers appropriately.
You can't say, "We can't afford to pay what programmers are worth." How about pay sales people less. Why do sales people get 30% commissions? Why do CEO's get millions?
The only real solution to the problem is to properly value the work and pay for it.
The value of the programmers is equal to all the people their programs replace, but yet, they are paid less than a single one of the individuals they replace.
Our society doesn't properly value programmers. If it did, there wouldn't be an H1-B issue. There are more Americans who want to be doctors than America will legally allow to exist. There's no cap on how many programmers there can be, yet America throws its hands up in the air wondering why.
The answer is obvious: America doesn't value programmers appropriately.
You can't say, "We can't afford to pay what programmers are worth." How about pay sales people less. Why do sales people get 30% commissions? Why do CEO's get millions?
The only real solution to the problem is to properly value the work and pay for it.
If America doesn't who does?
Radiology is one of those "this can be outsourced" things - https://healthmanagement.org/c/imaging/issuearticle/outsourc...
This is known as 'teleradiology' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleradiology )
This is known as 'teleradiology' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleradiology )
It also motivates them to invest in training and education to increase the supply of programmers.
Training and education are things you do with slack time, which only exists when you have more than enough staff to do the work. When teams are lean, no one can afford to teach.
Or they will just offshore to Canada or India. Look at the bottom of the article where it mentions Toronto.
That's not as bad as H1-B abuse and reflects a real possibility for any business. In other words, it's at least "fair."
The H1-B abuse is based on corporate lies. It's hard to claim that you need H1-B workers when you're replacing existing workers and even having the fired workers train their replacements.
The H1-B abuse is based on corporate lies. It's hard to claim that you need H1-B workers when you're replacing existing workers and even having the fired workers train their replacements.
I don't understand why they don't onshore to say Missouri, or Alabama, or anywhere that isn't a big city.
How many people want to move to AL or MO for jobs, compared to bigger cities? Your application pool would be considerably smaller.
In many cases they move people who have lost their work visa extensions after working for 5 to 10 years, yet haven't received their greencards because of country quotas.
Example:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/microsoft-might-be-forced-to...
In many cases they move people who have lost their work visa extensions after working for 5 to 10 years, yet haven't received their greencards because of country quotas.
Example:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/microsoft-might-be-forced-to...
I was thinking more of the people who already live there and are computer savvy and have an internet connection can be utilized.
FWIW, I'd love to get a decent sized property with internet, away from the city and traffic and pollution, and be able to work full time remotely.
FWIW, I'd love to get a decent sized property with internet, away from the city and traffic and pollution, and be able to work full time remotely.
[deleted]
There's so much discussion here about how H-1Bs are good or bad for cohort X or community Y.
Why does no one talk about the effects on the immigrants themselves? How much do they level up their technical and language skills? Are they able to support their families better? Are their kids now living in a less polluted environment (good for lifelong physical health) and in abundance, not scarcity (good for lifelong mental health)? How integrated are they in their local communities? How well do they form social bonds, both within their culture and across cultures? How different are they from family-based immigrants?
Surely we should care the most about the people whose lives are impacted the most?
(This is a rhetorical question, it's qwhite obvious what the reasons are.)
Why does no one talk about the effects on the immigrants themselves? How much do they level up their technical and language skills? Are they able to support their families better? Are their kids now living in a less polluted environment (good for lifelong physical health) and in abundance, not scarcity (good for lifelong mental health)? How integrated are they in their local communities? How well do they form social bonds, both within their culture and across cultures? How different are they from family-based immigrants?
Surely we should care the most about the people whose lives are impacted the most?
(This is a rhetorical question, it's qwhite obvious what the reasons are.)
Instead of all the lawyers fees and filing fees, could some of these employers retrain employees to do these jobs instead of laying people off?
It's not a matter of retraining. The issue was US corporations abusing the H1-B system to fire expensive US workers and replace them with Indian workers at half the going US worker rate.
There's not shortage of workers for companies willing to (1) pay market competitive rates and (2) hire older (i.e. over 40) workers.
There's not shortage of workers for companies willing to (1) pay market competitive rates and (2) hire older (i.e. over 40) workers.
They key concept here is Liberty. America was founded with the principles of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Rules on how American's should be able to hire people, or humiliating and excruciating bureaucratic processes goes against the very fabric of what America was supposed to be about.
The way America treats is foreigners is world renowned for abusive, expensive and unpredictable. It shames everyone who appreciates freedom of association. For all the rest, the petty happiness of the mediocre.
Rules on how American's should be able to hire people, or humiliating and excruciating bureaucratic processes goes against the very fabric of what America was supposed to be about.
The way America treats is foreigners is world renowned for abusive, expensive and unpredictable. It shames everyone who appreciates freedom of association. For all the rest, the petty happiness of the mediocre.
The restrictions on H1Bs is only a temporarily restraint and will only hasten the transition to 100% remote teams.
Soon people will no longer be complaining about Infosys and Tata Consulting but instead about Toptal, GitLab and Zapier - and there will be no regulatory way to stop them.
Politicians can only protect your jobs for so long.
Soon people will no longer be complaining about Infosys and Tata Consulting but instead about Toptal, GitLab and Zapier - and there will be no regulatory way to stop them.
Politicians can only protect your jobs for so long.
Politicians don't care about American's jobs. If they did they would have reigned in the H1B abuse years ago.
Disney had their IT department literally training their H1B replacements before being laid off. That was blatantly illegal. Nothing happened to them. How may other companies got away with this without notice because they weren't as stupid as Disney?
We can rake Zuck across the coals but Disney is untouchable. That's what politicians care about.
Disney had their IT department literally training their H1B replacements before being laid off. That was blatantly illegal. Nothing happened to them. How may other companies got away with this without notice because they weren't as stupid as Disney?
We can rake Zuck across the coals but Disney is untouchable. That's what politicians care about.
Exactly this. I work for Anthem, and they are implementing a plan to move the majority of their IT development work to a captive subsidiary in India. This is increasingly the model.
The H1B program was being abused for corporate greed.
There are several better ways of dealing with that instead of just making up arbitrary and capricious rules enforced in a random and unequal manner. When even companies like Apple protest it, there's something more than preventing abuse by body shops going on.
E.g They almost turned a routine matter into a catch-22 where it turns people requesting for work visa extensions while following all rules into criminals and putting them into the criminal court system.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/07/11/new-u...
They only backed down on that aspect after backlash from several big companies in the form of a letter addressed to DHS, but the other things in that letter still continue.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/23/news/companies/business-rou...
E.g They almost turned a routine matter into a catch-22 where it turns people requesting for work visa extensions while following all rules into criminals and putting them into the criminal court system.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/07/11/new-u...
They only backed down on that aspect after backlash from several big companies in the form of a letter addressed to DHS, but the other things in that letter still continue.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/23/news/companies/business-rou...
"When even companies like Apple protest it, there's something more than preventing abuse by body shops going on."
Err.. Wasn't Apple involved in wage-fixing along with Google (and Intel and Adobe)?[0] Apple isn't particularly credible in this regard, not when the result of a badly run H1B program would happen to be exactly what Apple was illegally trying to do.
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/03/apple_wagefixing_cl...
Err.. Wasn't Apple involved in wage-fixing along with Google (and Intel and Adobe)?[0] Apple isn't particularly credible in this regard, not when the result of a badly run H1B program would happen to be exactly what Apple was illegally trying to do.
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/03/apple_wagefixing_cl...
Why should anyone put their trust in what corporation say? They're an entity whose sole existence is to generate profit from employee labor. Not to mention Apple has a 99% approval rate for h1b apps.
Because said corporations can move the same high paying jobs to Canada or India. Especially easier in these days where big companies are becoming more comfortable with people working from home and fully remote work. So instead of taxes and consumption happening in the USA, all that money will go offshore. Citizens' jobs will be affected too when new teams are set up offshore with people already up to speed on internal knowledge of IT systems.
When they are already set up offshore and they look for new hires, do you think they will hire first in SV/NYC or in their Canada/India offices? Same with layoff preferences, they would prefer to lay off people in the more expensive location. And maybe hire someone new in the cheaper location.
This will affect a lot of non-tech local jobs both at the company like HR and cafeteria, and jobs in the local economy.
>Not to mention Apple has a 99% approval rate for h1b apps
Then why do you think Tim Cook personally signed this letter?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/brt.org/archive/letters/Immigration...
It isn't just about approval rates, it's about being able attract the best foreign talent, people being stuck in green card queue for a decade+ with no end in sight, not getting visas in consulates etc.
When they are already set up offshore and they look for new hires, do you think they will hire first in SV/NYC or in their Canada/India offices? Same with layoff preferences, they would prefer to lay off people in the more expensive location. And maybe hire someone new in the cheaper location.
This will affect a lot of non-tech local jobs both at the company like HR and cafeteria, and jobs in the local economy.
>Not to mention Apple has a 99% approval rate for h1b apps
Then why do you think Tim Cook personally signed this letter?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/brt.org/archive/letters/Immigration...
It isn't just about approval rates, it's about being able attract the best foreign talent, people being stuck in green card queue for a decade+ with no end in sight, not getting visas in consulates etc.
Don't you think if those FAANG companies could offshore those jobs they would have already? You think they keep them in SV because they love paying some Javascript guy more than a dentist just so he can afford rent? Please.
What do you think will happen if they need to pay 900k/yr to get good engineers in SV?
As the pay rises, the tendency and pressure to offshore increases. It will start slowly, but as more competitors do it, will accelerate.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/trumps-immig...
As the pay rises, the tendency and pressure to offshore increases. It will start slowly, but as more competitors do it, will accelerate.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/trumps-immig...
[deleted]
Maybe that's why IBM has been so incredibly successful after off shoring everything possible to India.
[deleted]
Look at all the projection in this thread. I made a simple and true statement.
Hacker News indeed
Hacker News indeed
Then let’s just give green cards to everyone who’s been on one for more than day, two years. The consulting shops will die quickly if you do this.
Great, so the company instead of bringing workers over to America where they can funnel their earnings back into the American economy are instead hired remotely in their country of origin, don't pay US taxes and can be hired at a fraction of the price.
Is there any reason why we shouldn't encourage companies to bring valuable employees to America, instead of encouraging them to outsource development to other countries? Obviously we have to solve the problem of H-1B farms depressing wages and harming employees by hanging the Sword of Damocles that is deportation over their head but proper H-1B usage is a benefit to local economies.
Is there any reason why we shouldn't encourage companies to bring valuable employees to America, instead of encouraging them to outsource development to other countries? Obviously we have to solve the problem of H-1B farms depressing wages and harming employees by hanging the Sword of Damocles that is deportation over their head but proper H-1B usage is a benefit to local economies.
+1
Our tax dollars at work.
Our tax dollars at work.
I'm going to wildly extrapolate from here and go meta about the future, though this is just a piece about your usual visa abusers finally getting the treat they deserve.
In 10-20 years there will be one viable immigration policy: closed borders. This is an inevitable corollary to the climate crisis.
In other words, if you're trying to better your life by relocating to a better place, get into pace - now.
In 10-20 years there will be one viable immigration policy: closed borders. This is an inevitable corollary to the climate crisis.
In other words, if you're trying to better your life by relocating to a better place, get into pace - now.
Not closed borders. Just specific closed borders. Notably, the ones facing the equator. Awkwardly the ones who will most need to close borders will be the ones against whom borders will be closed in the next wave of emigration.
lykr0n(2)
achingtooth(1)
achingtooth(4)
Yeah, this is definitely what all that "America first" and "Make America Great Again" stuff was about. Isolationism, pure and simple. Short term, it looks like a good strategy that benefits the own country. Long term, you lose potential partnerships and access to great workers, who will now be elsewhere, in competition with you. But I guess that will be someone else's problem, so why should a politician care?
> and access to great workers
and access to cheap workers
Let's be honest here.
and access to cheap workers
Let's be honest here.
The way the system is currently set up it's both. Outsourcing companies like those mentioned in the article (Infosys etc) absolutely abuse the system to hire cheap workers. But a lot of talented engineers are hired that way too. Hopefully I don't sound too biased when I say that, since I'm a former H1B holder. Whether I'm truly talented or not, I can assure you I was paid market rate.
I've got a very knowledgeable and experienced friend from Sweden that aced both Google's and Amazon's interviews, but they're only willing to employ him outside the US (Canada for example) due to the H1B issues. He didn't accept their offers and is now a top paid developer at a local startup.
I'm not sure how this is "Making America Great Again".
I'm not sure how this is "Making America Great Again".
[deleted]
Exactly. If they gave it an ounce of thought, Right-wing guys would be PRO H1B visas because they brain-drain other countries and maintain western dominance.
H1B visas are awesome for the west and terrible for the countries the immigrants come from. Brain drain is crazy
H1B visas are awesome for the west and terrible for the countries the immigrants come from. Brain drain is crazy
What's all this nationalist nonsense? H1Bs are great for the immigrants and that is the only thing that matters.
I’m not a nationalist and I don’t like or agree with nationalism.
You dont think second-order effects of actions are relevant? You don’t think it’s relevant that we’re brain draining other countries, and that it might actually make those countries and their citizens WORSE OFF? Why are you so committed to your shallow level of analysis? Why don’t you care about the poor people in the countries that the H1B guys leave behind as they travel to America to enrich the USA?
You dont think second-order effects of actions are relevant? You don’t think it’s relevant that we’re brain draining other countries, and that it might actually make those countries and their citizens WORSE OFF? Why are you so committed to your shallow level of analysis? Why don’t you care about the poor people in the countries that the H1B guys leave behind as they travel to America to enrich the USA?
There's an easy solution to that — massively increase foreign aid! Encourage remittances! Fix historical injustices. Pay reparations.
I bet H-1Bs are the only time many people get so bothered about the global poor. Imperialism and colonialism have caused much more harm to poor people in India or wherever than a bunch of smart people seeking a better life.
It's similar to how unauthorized immigration is the only time many right-wing people start caring about homeless US citizens. US tax and transfer policy has caused much more harm than all unauthorized immigrants combined, of course. Right-wing arguments here can at best be described as motivated reasoning.
I bet H-1Bs are the only time many people get so bothered about the global poor. Imperialism and colonialism have caused much more harm to poor people in India or wherever than a bunch of smart people seeking a better life.
It's similar to how unauthorized immigration is the only time many right-wing people start caring about homeless US citizens. US tax and transfer policy has caused much more harm than all unauthorized immigrants combined, of course. Right-wing arguments here can at best be described as motivated reasoning.
>Imperialism and colonialism have caused much more harm to poor people in India or wherever than a bunch of smart people seeking a better life.
That’s impossible to quantify because those people seeking a better life also abandon their home countries.
LOL dude, what do you think remittances are gonna do other than pay for their kids to get educated JUST SO WE CAN BRAIN DRAIN THEIR KIDS TOO?
I don’t understand why the left is not anti-immigration because immigration so obviously hurts developing countries through brain drain.
That’s impossible to quantify because those people seeking a better life also abandon their home countries.
LOL dude, what do you think remittances are gonna do other than pay for their kids to get educated JUST SO WE CAN BRAIN DRAIN THEIR KIDS TOO?
I don’t understand why the left is not anti-immigration because immigration so obviously hurts developing countries through brain drain.
> That’s impossible to quantify
Do you actually dispute that colonialism has caused more harm than emigration? Wow. Holy shit.
> LOL dude
I'm not a dude.
There are large parts of the left that are anti-immigration. They are also all bigoted. Nationalism is bad. Internationalism, caring about all workers, is good.
Edit: oh right. You're the one who talked about "rapid" "onset" gender dysphoria the other day. Silly me to engage with you again.
Do you actually dispute that colonialism has caused more harm than emigration? Wow. Holy shit.
> LOL dude
I'm not a dude.
There are large parts of the left that are anti-immigration. They are also all bigoted. Nationalism is bad. Internationalism, caring about all workers, is good.
Edit: oh right. You're the one who talked about "rapid" "onset" gender dysphoria the other day. Silly me to engage with you again.
>Do you actually dispute that colonialism has caused more harm than emigration? Wow. Holy shit.
I don’t dispute it, I just don’t claim to know because I’m not omniscient, and people who claim to know are actually just taking it on faith because it’s unquantifiable.
>I’m not a dude
In 2019 it’s a gender neutral term, no need to gender it.
>Nationalism is bad
Eh, again, we’re not omniscient so we can’t know this. Do you really think nationalism was bad for Japan when they were rebuilding their economy after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think nationalism helped Japan a lot in that circumstance.
>Internationalism, caring about all workers, is good
Again we’re not omniscient so we can’t pretend that we actually care about people we don’t even know. Also, “all workers” is a weird generalization. Jeffrey Epstein was a worker but is he really worth your care?
>you’re the one who talked about “rapid onset gender dysphoria”
I fully support trans people. I have many trans friends. I’m open minded. Can you convince me that “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” does not exist? I’m totally open to the possibility of it not existing... however, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. For me the thing that’s important is to LISTEN TO TRANS PEOPLE, and the trans people I know are the ones who introduced me to the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” They believe it, so I believe it, because I listen to them. Can you convince me to ignore trans people and what they tell me? I don’t know why you’d want to, but feel free to try.
I don’t dispute it, I just don’t claim to know because I’m not omniscient, and people who claim to know are actually just taking it on faith because it’s unquantifiable.
>I’m not a dude
In 2019 it’s a gender neutral term, no need to gender it.
>Nationalism is bad
Eh, again, we’re not omniscient so we can’t know this. Do you really think nationalism was bad for Japan when they were rebuilding their economy after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think nationalism helped Japan a lot in that circumstance.
>Internationalism, caring about all workers, is good
Again we’re not omniscient so we can’t pretend that we actually care about people we don’t even know. Also, “all workers” is a weird generalization. Jeffrey Epstein was a worker but is he really worth your care?
>you’re the one who talked about “rapid onset gender dysphoria”
I fully support trans people. I have many trans friends. I’m open minded. Can you convince me that “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” does not exist? I’m totally open to the possibility of it not existing... however, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. For me the thing that’s important is to LISTEN TO TRANS PEOPLE, and the trans people I know are the ones who introduced me to the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” They believe it, so I believe it, because I listen to them. Can you convince me to ignore trans people and what they tell me? I don’t know why you’d want to, but feel free to try.
I wonder if we will observe an uptick in software quality as a consequence...
Big companies and startups look good by supporting expanded foreign worker programs. It makes them look progressive. It also lowers their costs to have more qualified workers around.
But actually I know many local (US citizen) Silicon Valley programmers who don’t support those programs. They know that more workers means lower salaries for everyone.
But actually I know many local (US citizen) Silicon Valley programmers who don’t support those programs. They know that more workers means lower salaries for everyone.
[deleted]
We ban commenters who break them and have had to do so several times in this thread.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html