The number of annual H-1B hires by Wipro and Infosys coupled with the corresponding average salary data reveal the extent of abuse in the current system. Indian developers are imported into the US to essentially provide an in-house alternative to offshoring, with pernicious consequences for the US economy and the high tech labor pool within the US. A small disclaimer- I'm not a bitter ex-developer who lost his job with a large US corporation in the recent past. In fact, I'm an internet dude in San Francisco, personally unaffected by these policies. I'm also convinced that Intel and other cutting edge companies absolutely need access to more brilliant tech minds through the H1-B program.
Let me point out a few obvious and unsettling problems that stem from Infosys and its ilk directly importing developers into the IT offices of US corporations. First and foremost, if the number of programmers in this country is a real issue (see excellent article linked at bottom) and one that you're serious about solving, then the consequences of underpaid H1-B developers is troublesome. When companies can replace US hires with H1-B consultants, not only do US developers become comparatively expensive, but the number of job openings is also reduced, artificially holding down IT salaries. The market's answer to a shortage in supply is higher prices- yet stagnant IT salaries remain an obstacle to the tech industry attracting more talent ("in computing and IT, wages have generally been stagnant for the past decade, according to the EPI"). Money can absolutely make IT more cool, but unless you land in a promising startup, you're better off pursuing a career in finance or attending business school.
In the context of a country burdened with stagnanet wages and a growing wealth gap, repressed IT salaires are even more distrubing. While IT automation allows corporations to significantly downsize and slash mid-level executives across the board, the IT developers directly responsible for these greater efficiencies can never expect to earn the same $300k salaries of the laid off executives. You might think that as high paying US middle management jobs are lost, equally attractive IT jobs might help stem the drain on US middle class incomes. But there are few signs that even the supposedly systemic shortages of programmers in a country where "software is eating the world" can lift IT salaries across the board, year over year, over a significant period of time. Ask yourself- why hasn't IT wage inflation, inevitable under the normal market conditions of a true shortage, reduced corporate profits by even one tenth of one percent over the past decade?
Just as troubling, US corporations can lean on H1-B consultants as a band-aid that lets them avoid the steps needed to actually address the underlying problems they see in the tech labor market. Despite record profits, how many corporations have revamped their technology department training and recruitment practices, or started offering better benefits and improved career paths to new IT hires? Why don't college-bound kids generally show even the slightest amout of excitement when asked about the promise of working in IT? The answer is simple- those jobs are no more attractive than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Exciting opportunities for advancement or higher pay or even the opportunity for mentorship from leaders in non-IT parts of the business? Good luck with that! Let's face it, beyond the opportunity to indulge your joy of coding on a daily basis, IT jobs still suck. H1-B programs let corporations avoid spending resources needed for real, substantial improvements.
Yes, high availability with ACID and 'eventual consistency' on reads. I never understood why an eventually consistent datastore could qualify as ACID because in the real world if you need ACID, then eventual consistency is never good enough.
It's good to see Google roll this service out separately from GAE but it's not as good as DynamoDB or data services from Parse and others.
Elon's comments have some validity, but there is a bit of grandstanding going on. Thermal runaway with lion batteries isn't a random event. It's very predictable and very preventable. 99% of lion batteries in use have a built in thermosensor so that they can charge correctly without exploding---because any lion battery will explode if charged too fast or if it goes into overvoltage.
So since all of the variables to prevent thermal runaway are know, it should make no difference how closely together they are placed. However in this case there is either a problem with the charging software---which isn't adequately performing and preventing the condition that is causing the batteries to overheat OR the batteries themselves (although in good working order) are not performing within the correct performance envelope that the software has been developed to use.
Screaming that placing the cells too close together is bogus. You laptop has cells placed equally close together as do all Tesla vehicles---and they can burn and explode just like the ones on the 787---yet that is a very rare occurrence. Because all of the charging parameters are known. Same applies to the Boeing batteries, but something is not performing according to plan.
In space, the parameters are completely different. Fire is the absolute worst case scenario in space and everything that can be done to mitigate the chance of one will be taken. Which is why the batteries on the SpaceX vehicles are spaced out they way they are. Yes, they know all of the parameters for the batteries, but the logistics of changing a battery in space are much different than those of an aircraft.
Boeing's fault in all of this is that something is not performing according to spec---and they knew that due to all of the battery swaps the Japanese airlines were doing. At that point they should have grounded and figured out the problem. But past Elon, others have already stepped up and criticized Boeings move to lions in the first place. Nickel cadmium batteries would have weighed 40 pounds more and have barely 1/1000th of a chance of thermal runaway that lithium ion batteries do. They don't charge as fast, but they are still well within the performance envelope needed by the 787.
It's just as easy to imagine Google getting undercut by a big company. Yahoo, here's your opening.
I always thought of free Google Apps as the company's brilliant play to control the fabric of the business internet. Can you name anything in the digital realm more important to businesses and organizations of all sizes than long-form communication (email) and content and information-driven collaboration?
Sadly for new users and for Google itself, the company's actions reveal a failure to recognize Apps as anything more than a collection of inter-related services ready for more aggressive monetization. Management fails to see the strategic benefit and leverage afforded by controlling the online fabric of every new business that starts operating as a small team. It's the type of short-term and profit-driven thinking that afflicts so many companies as they reach the complacency of scale.
"I agree, but some of his content will be a barrier for some people. I'm sure if the tone of the post was milder, most of the comments here would be supportive."
-- too typical a response
"Peppered throughout the post are cultural signs and signifiers that mark the author as an advocate for a fairly specific set of political and social beliefs."
-- completely irrelevant to assessing the facts of the case
As a white male, I'm very disappointed by how many in the HN community have responded to this story. The victim- and let me emphasize, this individual is a victim- has every right to feel and express any number of hostile feelings toward the perps involved and, furthermore, has the right to express his frustration at how racist behavior was openly exhibited in front of so many employees, with no consequences whatsoever. In fact, you have to wonder why none of his white colleagues stood up and objected to some of the more colorful remarks made in the presence of others. Is it really that difficult to understand why he might perceive all the whites in his office as a$$holes? His story isn't merely an indictment of a few managers, but of a culture (and yes, a white culture) that absolutely tolerated racism both at an individual and collective level. These incidents didn't only occur behind a closed door. Is or was this culture present in only one SF company?
After what this individual was subjected to, you have to be incredibly small minded to feel offended by the fact that his language reveals frustration or antagonism toward whites.
By the way, I've also seen racism exhibited toward Asian immigrants- not the rockstar programmers matriculated in the US- but recent immigrants holding lower level positions. Let's not pretend that racism doesn't exist in SF by brushing off depictions of racism as a consequence of intrinsic racism on the part of the accuser.
When you read between the lines, doesn't this story imply that programmers who eschew object-oriented programming practices suffer from mild derangement?
So what- are you saying that any company that builds products with a strong secondary market or longer shelf life than the category norm should be exempt from maximizing recycle-ability?
The spirit of Tim O'Reilly, Steve Jobs, and other great innovators of that generation, whose worldviews were shaped by counterculture values and the human rights movement of the 1960's are truly vanishing from silicon valley. Welcome to the new spirit of online innovation, a culture driven by pure commercialism and dreams of higher profits for all.
I've come to expect nothing less from the Hacker News community than what's reflected by the general tone of the comments in this post.
1. Unless it's an issue related to net neutrality or 'geek rights', let's bend over backward to give corporate America the benefit of the doubt; after all, as aspiring entrepreneurs, can't you sympathize with behavior intended to maximize net revenue?
2. Apple is being victimized by outside parties that fail to comprehend the importance of slaughtering all ideals and standards at the temple of Apple design whims (if a screw requires an extra 2mm of space, there's absolutely no environmental trade-off worthy of discussion or debate).
3. Let's not jump too quickly to question authority, especially when it involves Apple or any tech flavor of the month because you should assume their motives are pure.
This may sound counter intuitive, but you have far more to lose by staying than by moving on. In fact you face a couple significant risks that increase the longer you're there.
First, the founders may sense your lack of "enthusiasm" and realize that your chances of leaving are high. To protect the company's reputation from the public vote of no confidence implicit in your quitting, they may decide to take the initiative and fire you. Yes, this type of behavior is underhanded but it's more common than you may think. Imagine trying to explain to a hiring manager that you were fired because you planned to quit. Unfortunately, no one will believe you.
Second, you're part of a sinking ship and as the tech lead there's no way to separate your reputation from it. The longer you stay, the longer you expose your personal brand to the failure at large.
My last advice is the most important because it should guide all of your career decisions. Do not let fear suppress your better judgement. Step back from the reasons you listed for staying at the company and you'll realize that fear is the commonality. Fear isn't your friend. It will mislead you.
More than call centers, this industry reminds me of the meatpacking industry. Warehouse workers fill a crucial step in a larger fulfillment model that unnecessarily imposes harsh conditions on its workforce. The writer mentions picking 500 items during her last morning on the job, which probably represents anywhere from 200 to 300 orders (assuming the average book or dildo order is small). Over a 5 hour period, that represents 40 to 60 orders per hour, picked at real hourly cost of perhaps $14. In other words, a slower picking rate and higher wages might cost consumers several extra dimes per order. It's reasonable to say that passing this additional cost to consumers would have a trivial impact on shopper's wallets, while fueling a strong wealth creation effect in the community where the warehouse is located as its workers can actually afford to spend their way into a middle class lifestyle.
Likewise, the meatpacking industry is infamous for its brutal working conditions and low wages. It has bred many low income, working poor communities plighted by gangs, crime, and despair. The solution to righting the industry and its communities is obvious- pay employees real, middle class wages. But the industry has been fighting a race to the bottom, as the wholesalers of meat products will obviously pick the meatpacking company that can sell at the lowest cost. Because better wages would only increase the price supermarkets pay for meat by several cents per pound, one meatpacking company CEO has openly called for imposing higher wage levels across the entire industry (easier than done). The introduction of higher wages would boost local economies and in aggregate that contributes to the nation's prosperity.
The industries are examples of capitalism at its most efficient and of capitalism utterly failing society as well.
It's hard to understand why you're going to such lengths to defend Microsoft in this case. Hejlsberg and a few other Borlanders received justifiably high bonuses, but the absurdly rich enticements were extended much further down the line.
As an ex-Borlander at the time, I heard all kinds of inside stories about the Microsoft offers. For a compiler engineer, the bonus represented a life-altering financial event that Borland didn't have the resources to match. Many never had their heart in the move to Redmond and left Microsoft after a few years. If you understood how Borland's culture of software craftsmanship compared to the churn of second-rate engineering packaged and sold by Microsoft on a regular basis, it's no surprise that the flight of talent wasn't driven by the dream of working on Microsoft products or exposure to Microsoft's business culture.
On a brighter note, Borland may have lost but silicon valley ultimately won when Google's incredibly fast growth prevented Microsoft from pulling a Borland on Google's search engine team.
I doubt you'll find any authoritative sources on the full extent of the abuse, as the ensuing lawsuit was settled out of court under the typical terms that sequestered the evidence backing Borland's claims and gagged the truth.
However, I agree that not every Borland engineer sat on his or her thumbs; many simply felt under-utilized in the wake of a Microsoft hiring spree that was obviously designed to kill a competitor as opposed to fill open positions. It's no secret that some of those hires were lured from Borland with signing bonuses that reached 7 figures... for compiler engineers.
Shocking, absolutely shocking to read that MBA students would engage in such behavior. One might imagine, with great difficulty of course, that their sole purpose in entering business school was the pursuit of personal and financial gain by any means.
Nice strategy. If a customer doesn't give your products fair consideration, sue them. There's no doubt Google has a very strong cloud product, one that's superior to Microsoft's in certain scenarios. But to start a lawsuit over this seems kind of extreme. Not the strategy of a "don't be evil" company.
As entrepreneurs, we need both Conway and the Super Angels. It's time for everyone to get over these unfortunate meetings and forgive the participants. Enough is enough.
Did they do something wrong? Hell yes. But it's been exposed, examined, and discussed. Publicly stoning a group of angels represents the worst kind of mob behavior and reflects poorly on entrepreneurs as an investment class. Let's not forget that wealthy individuals have many different options for investing their money that historically have higher rates of return (i.e. make more money) than investments in startup companies. Many angels invest in startups because it's more fun than profitable. Let's not change that dynamic in spite of ourselves.
At the end of the day, we want angel investing to be the biggest game possible. It's a surplus of angel money that has put entrepreneurs in the driver's seat and made term sheets extremely favorable to founders. Fewer angels in the mix and the scenario can change quickly.
It's time to prove that we're better than a small group of angels who engaged in such unfortunate behavior. It's time to forgive and move on.
You're right, it is terrible for Google's image. The way you give a competitor credibility is through this kind of obvious imitation. Google is sending a clear message that it believes Bing is worth imitating in numerous ways. What's worse, Google is highlighting Bing's strengths- which is unfortunate, as Google is the superior search engine. Bad move.
Half of his rant focuses on Zuck 'stealing' features from other websites and potential competitors. Since when did adding new features that someone else invented become a moral issue? In many industries, that's standard practice. Google didn't exactly invent email. There's no moral standard to apply here.
His other assertions about Zuck screwing over past partners is more troubling.
I wish you would provide another funding route for the old hackers who didn't strike gold in 1999 but who don't have the option to work for next to nothing for a summer (even if we're willing to quit our jobs for the opportunity).
Let me point out a few obvious and unsettling problems that stem from Infosys and its ilk directly importing developers into the IT offices of US corporations. First and foremost, if the number of programmers in this country is a real issue (see excellent article linked at bottom) and one that you're serious about solving, then the consequences of underpaid H1-B developers is troublesome. When companies can replace US hires with H1-B consultants, not only do US developers become comparatively expensive, but the number of job openings is also reduced, artificially holding down IT salaries. The market's answer to a shortage in supply is higher prices- yet stagnant IT salaries remain an obstacle to the tech industry attracting more talent ("in computing and IT, wages have generally been stagnant for the past decade, according to the EPI"). Money can absolutely make IT more cool, but unless you land in a promising startup, you're better off pursuing a career in finance or attending business school.
In the context of a country burdened with stagnanet wages and a growing wealth gap, repressed IT salaires are even more distrubing. While IT automation allows corporations to significantly downsize and slash mid-level executives across the board, the IT developers directly responsible for these greater efficiencies can never expect to earn the same $300k salaries of the laid off executives. You might think that as high paying US middle management jobs are lost, equally attractive IT jobs might help stem the drain on US middle class incomes. But there are few signs that even the supposedly systemic shortages of programmers in a country where "software is eating the world" can lift IT salaries across the board, year over year, over a significant period of time. Ask yourself- why hasn't IT wage inflation, inevitable under the normal market conditions of a true shortage, reduced corporate profits by even one tenth of one percent over the past decade?
Just as troubling, US corporations can lean on H1-B consultants as a band-aid that lets them avoid the steps needed to actually address the underlying problems they see in the tech labor market. Despite record profits, how many corporations have revamped their technology department training and recruitment practices, or started offering better benefits and improved career paths to new IT hires? Why don't college-bound kids generally show even the slightest amout of excitement when asked about the promise of working in IT? The answer is simple- those jobs are no more attractive than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Exciting opportunities for advancement or higher pay or even the opportunity for mentorship from leaders in non-IT parts of the business? Good luck with that! Let's face it, beyond the opportunity to indulge your joy of coding on a daily basis, IT jobs still suck. H1-B programs let corporations avoid spending resources needed for real, substantial improvements.
Is there actually a STEM shortage?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...