Evidence That H-1B Holders Don't Replace US Workers 417
Okian Warrior writes: In response to Donald Trump's allegations that H1B visas drive Americans out of jobs, The Huffington Post points to this study which refutes that claim. From the study: "But the data show that over the last decade, as businesses have requested more H-1Bs, they also expanded jobs for Americans." This seems to fly in the face of reason, consensus opinion, and numerous anecdotal reports. Is this report accurate? Have we been concerned over nothing these past few years? Remember, this is about aggregates, rather than whether some specific job has been replaced.
BULL (Score:4, Informative)
I have a bunch of H-1B workers (All Indian) at my place of employment, so yeah, they DO replace American workers.
Re:BULL (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, of course. Every foreign worker hired is a job that doesn't go to an American worker.
Claiming that hiring foreign workers doesn't take jobs away from American workers is bizzaro logic at its best. Its the same bizzaro logic that said shutting down factories and sending millions of jobs to Mexico and China creates job for American workers.
More importantly, the claim that these are "highly skilled workers" is a lie that insults our intelligence.
Why is it that all of these "highly skilled workers" come from the same place - a country where a huge percentage of the population is illiterate and lives in poverty far beyond anything that exists in the U.S. A country where 350 million people, more than the entire population of the U.S., shit in public because they don't have access to a toilet. How is it possible that such a country is producing such huge numbers of "highly skilled workers"?
That's right, it isn't possible. The only "skill" they possess is a willingness to work for low wages. And since the H1-B program is nothing more than legalized indentured servitude, companies can do anything they want without feat of being reported by the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible, once you stop assuming the country is entirely the same from coast to coast, from sea to mountains, from state to state. Yes, India has a lot of catching up to do, but it already has very good schools, and frequently a great cultural pressure for people to study well and get a good job. Many H1B workers come from India because it's the best place to take them from - a poor country with good IT education facilities, which is already geared up (thanks to the massive companies which deal with
Re: (Score:3)
Well, of course. Every foreign worker hired is a job that doesn't go to an American worker.
Claiming that hiring foreign workers doesn't take jobs away from American workers is bizzaro logic at its best. Its the same bizzaro logic that said shutting down factories and sending millions of jobs to Mexico and China creates job for American workers.
Agreed
More importantly, the claim that these are "highly skilled workers" is a lie that insults our intelligence.
Why is it that all of these "highly skilled workers" come from the same place - a country where a huge percentage of the population is illiterate and lives in poverty far beyond anything that exists in the U.S. A country where 350 million people, more than the entire population of the U.S., shit in public because they don't have access to a toilet. How is it possible that such a country is producing such huge numbers of "highly skilled workers"?
Besides the rural population you already mentioned, there are another 350M middle class there, and yet another 350M there that are quite well off, have access to excellent schools thus becoming as "highly skilled" as a westerner.
That's right, it isn't possible. The only "skill" they possess is a willingness to work for low wages. And since the H1-B program is nothing more than legalized indentured servitude, companies can do anything they want without feat of being reported by the workers.
It is certainly possible, it's a fact. It's happening. There are over 4000 engineering colleges in India. There are way, way more comp-sci/engineering grads coming out of India than the USA. There are also over 100,000 Indian students (15,000 undergrad, 85 000 post grad) s
More bull! (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides the rural population you already mentioned, there are another 350M middle class there, and yet another 350M there that are quite well off, have access to excellent schools thus becoming as "highly skilled" as a westerner.
Why people want to claim such easy to disprove bullshit is quite befuddling. No country has a good balance between rich, poor, and middle class. The 1/3rd of the population you claim exists and is "quite well off" simply does not! [thehindu.com] India is very similar to the US where the top .01% own most of the country and the top 10% own 90% of the wealth just like the US. There are more people in extreme poverty in India which makes them worse than the US.
Getting a degree does not make a good and productive worker in a foreign country. If it did, every company would have more Chinese workers than Indian workers because that is who the numbers have favored for decades. There is quite a bit to that discussion, more than I care to get into in this thread. Anyone that has dealt with development and support out of a foreign country knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Your personal anecdote with hiring does not change the fact that H1B workers are easily pressured into working far more than anyone should. Recent criminal actions against several companies for human rights violations in the SF Bay area should make that abundantly clear, and we only know about the few that were abused to a point where they turned in their sponsors. Of course a H1B worker is "hard working"! That is the point of people calling it a legal indentured servitude. For every one company that uses the system correctly there are at least as many that don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, of course. Every foreign worker hired is a job that doesn't go to an American worker.
Claiming that hiring foreign workers doesn't take jobs away from American workers is bizzaro logic at its best.
Zero sum fallacy.
Seriously. This is about as stupid as the debate can get.
Re:BULL (Score:4, Insightful)
While true, it doesn't mean foreign workers don't affect US employment at all. Just not on a 1-to-1 basis like simplistic politicians claim.
Of course, there may be more long-term benefits that far outweigh the short-term drops in domestic employment. As others mentioned, these are hard-working, semi-skilled to very skilled individuals who want to come to this country to work, pay taxes, buy property, etc. Hardly the type of people you wanna be turning away considering your own population is dominated by people of retirement age....
Re: (Score:3)
But what exactly does this one foreign worker do that one native worker doesn't, apart from working for a lower pay?
Re: (Score:3)
They bring skills that couldn't be aquired by hiring an American into the company and cause that company to be more productive, allowing them to make more money, and hire more Americans for other roles.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you have more money to spend does not mean you hire more people, duh dummy, that is called profit and investors demand it rises every year. No matter how much money you have to spare you do not hire anyone unless there is a customer capable of buying the productive effort of the person you are paying. Investors demand company do not hire people to sit around doing nothing unless they are part of the corporate executive team. So cheaper workers means higher profits (all shuffled into offshore t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exhibits less entitlement. Works harder because he's grateful for his chance. Comes from a culture where you very very rarely stand against your boss (in case of Indian workers). Speaks, on average, more languages than a native worker. Is more willing to improve because he risks more if not improving.
There are also disadvantages, of course: some workers might have high MTI (aka "thick accent"), there's always some cultural clash (ranging from insignificant to hellish), might not integrate ("fully" to "at al
Re:BULL (Score:5, Insightful)
But neither Scenario A or B is the common one.
Scenario C - company doesn't hire the American worker that suits the role, and chooses to import a worker at 60% the salary cost. Company C rejects all American workers they can based on any criteria they can find, while accepting falsified resumes by H1B importer companies. Company C, who would of had to spend $1 million on American workers saves $400,000 on H1B workers. Rather than increase salary, the $400,000 is divided in two, $200,000 goes to investors, and $200,000 goes to executive bonuses.
American worker finally concedes, lowers salary from $100K to $75K. Gets hired. Company C then hires H1B workers at $50K instead of $60K. Result, our own government IT jobs are filled with 30 man teams in which 3 are Americans and the rest H1B.
That's far more the accurate scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
Except....
The PIE is getting smaller. The portion of the GDP that goes into the hands of the average person is far less today than in the past.
So you had 8 slices, now you have 7 slices. And suddenly you have 2 H1Bs - you now need 10 slices. You are told to cut the slices in half. You now have 14 slices. And are told you should be happy, there are extra slices. And you shouldn't be as hungry, because before you had only 1 slice. And now if you're hungry there are four extra slices. But your slice was
Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What businesses *do* see is we're not as desperate for a job. They're so used to having a hundred people apply for one job mopping floors that they think that's normal, and the way things should be.
Actually the Niskanen Center is Libertarian. (Score:2)
Actually the Niskanen Center is Libertarian.
They state as their intent to shrink the size of government. This is them wanting to get rid of INS. They are pretty radical, even as Libertarians go, since most Libertarians are OK with UBI (for example), as a means of paying poor people to not steal their stuff. These guys are far ... not right or left ... up?
Re: (Score:2)
I have been and always will be a small l libertarian, but I am fed up with Rothbardian capital L Libertarians. Non aggression principle/Non-initiation of force is the axiom their whole ideology is built on, and it's wrong. Life is lions and hyenas on the Discovery channel.
You can tear apart these people in a debate like so much paper if you don't buy into NAP.
It's fun.
Property IS theft AND there's nothing wrong with theft.
It blows their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say the study is funded by CATO?
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't say anywhere that the study is funded by CATO, although there is nothing stopping a bit of friendly back-scratching between golf-course buddies to cross-fund studies so that the interested party gets a piece of paper that supports their argument, without there being any direct financial ties. Which is not to say, of course, that this is an example of such.
In this case, the author of the study, David Bier, is the Immigration Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center, which is a basically Libertarian t
Re: (Score:3)
Not funded by Cato. Run by a guy who used to run Cato, and receives funding from the same sources. It's just a shell game.
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Insightful)
Any other day and HuffPo would be telling us about the horrors of H1B abuse by large corporations. However, if it means furthering the narrative that Trump is bad, then suddenly H1Bs are good.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically with friends like Trump, who needs enemies?
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Insightful)
Any other day and HuffPo would be telling us about the horrors of H1B abuse by large corporations. However, if it means furthering the narrative that Trump is bad, then suddenly H1Bs are good.
Someone finally states the correct spin of the article. I doesn't matter who funded the study or why, it's needed to attack Trump.
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Interesting)
And while I don't agree with Trump on some of the other stuff, his comments about H-1B abuse were spot on, and the op-ed piece was just BS.
Also, wasn't HuffPo still refusing to cover Trump's campaign as political news, and insisting on filing it under entertainment? I guess consistency from them would be too much to ask for.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, maybe a cogent argument as to HuffPo's motives and/or possible motivations should have been used, instead of just spewing agitprop and wishful thinking?
Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know, maybe a cogent argument as to HuffPo's motives and/or possible motivations should have been used
Why? That's already been done in this thread. If that's all you expect out of it, it's done, and you can stop participating.
instead of just spewing agitprop and wishful thinking?
Point to the wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[MODERATORS] I am used to being down-modded unfairly because I frequently go against Slashdot group-think. Instead of down-modding me why not actually give readers a chance to come up with an intelligent response instead? Is it because the opposing position is basically indefensible? Or are the supporters of the right so stupid that they cannot string together a few sentences that (a) make sense and (b) support their position?
Perhaps you should rethink your methods of argument, as your post comes across as quite flamebait, and I would have downmodded you.
This "study" is from a Libertarian "think tank" (can you say oxymoron?)
So, because Libertarians have a different political opinion than you, they must all be stupid, is that really the way you want to portray yourself? It is very likely that you aren't a Libertarian because you don't understand the platform, not because the platform is stupid.
I am sure there are other examples, but I feel like I am losing intelligence arguing with you, so it is no
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You act like like there's some fundamental gulf between these two camps when it comes to cheap labor and abusing the tax base.
Yeah, I know, they both promise us this and that and claim that "the other guy" obstructs their every move while maintaining an open and unashamed "fair is fair" doctrine when it comes down to how they conduct such business.
Keep chugging the Kool Aide. It did wonders for the poor souls of Jonestown.
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Funny)
They are not far left. They are anti-Republican. Hence, if Republicans start preaching about global warming and nuclear disarmament, guaranteed HuffPo will want to invade Russia and fire up the coal plants.
It's not about what they want done, it's who they want to lose.
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Complete Bullshit - funded by Koch-funded CATO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bull - You are missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
What the H1B provides is a means for an employee to *NOT* participate in relocation. By offering H1B positions, companies do not actively recruit people from other areas, assist in relocation, the alternative is to open more branch offices in other locations near the groups of people. Instead, they offer the H1B because (1) the cost of that worker is less, and (2) they do not need to provide relocation. Lastly, most H1B workers want a green card. The problem is once the worker starts the green card process they are sort of an indentured servant to the sponsoring company. They cannot quit, they cannot threaten to leave otherwise they loose the green card. This process lasts from 3 to 6 years. If the H1B worker had job mobility as a normal american does, the H1B worker would recognize the low pay, demand higher pay, or move on to another job in the USA leaving the low paying company with a hole. This job mobility (or non-mobility) by the H1B worker solves or causes the problem. I know this, I have been involved with these types of decisions, or watched these types of decisions occur right before me over the last 30+ years writing software.
doesn't allow for expansion (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, remember that part of the fight is about _expanding_ the pool of H1-Bs. From the pov of the employers, if current levels of H1Bs mean they aren't getting cheaper labor, then clearly they don't have enough H1-Bs. The study doesn't project what would happen if the number were increased substantially.
Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no mention of salaries, benefits, much less anything specific to particular fields, not even "IT." At most he made an argument that "STEM grads are less likely to be unemployed" but that means nothing, because that can still be true even if they're not being given the opportunities they should.
Re:Misdirection (Score:5, Interesting)
There was no mention of salaries, benefits, much less anything specific to particular fields, not even "IT."
You've got the correct conclusion, but incorrect facts. Here's the full study [niskanencenter.org]. They do in fact separate out computer, engineering, and mathematics jobs, and they do compare wages, and do correctly conclude that wages are up. But,
1) How high would wages be without H1-B competition? Sure, "real annual wages (2015$) in engineering, architectural, computer, and mathematical occupations" is up by a whopping $3000 from 2001 to 2015...during a time when tech companies are stashing billions.
2) They're doing the same stupid thing everyone does with "the unemployment rate." Pretend I'm an engineer who gets replaced by a an H1-B. While I'm looking for an engineering job, I'm an "unemployed engineer" and show up in the unemployment rate for engineers statistics. If I take a job flipping burgs at McD's in order to not starve to death, I'm no longer an unemployed engineer. I'm an employed fast-food worker, and do not show up on the unemployment statistics. So in this way, yes, employment of H1-Bs can rise, while the unemployment rate for engineers does not budge.
Somebody read How to Lie With Statistics [amazon.com] and used it for evil instead of good.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually just realized the op-ed author on HuffPo and the bullshit study have the same author, David Bier. The "Niskanen Center" is a spin-off of CATO. So, Koch brothers lie factory.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that the chart comparing "time to H1B cap" to "unemployement" and showing correlation is taken as proof that H1B help employement. It reads to me the complete inverse.
If when there is more unemployment we hire less H1B, it indicates that H1B are used similarly to domestic hires since they follow the same pattern.
Supply and Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a rewording of the old saw that illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans won't do -- at salaries that are too low. If the flow of H1-Bs dried up, then wages would rise as the American tech workers would become more valuable. As wages rose, then becoming a tech worker would be viewed more favorably.
With the same evidence, Huff Po could have argued that H1-Bs are depressing wages for American tech workers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But Trump doesn't like the H1B program and Obama and Clinton do, so H1B is a grand program all of a sudden. HuffPo is pretty damn partisan and this is how politics works: forget anything they've ever said before.
Re: (Score:3)
This is just a rewording of the old saw that illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans won't do -- at salaries that are too low. If the flow of H1-Bs dried up, then wages would rise as the American tech workers would become more valuable. As wages rose, then becoming a tech worker would be viewed more favorably.
With the same evidence, Huff Po could have argued that H1-Bs are depressing wages for American tech workers.
Also, when the cost goes up or availability of low wage workers goes down then it is often technology which is used to make up the difference. That dynamic increases the flow of wealth to STEM workers. Ultimately, from a more Humanistic world view I don't see anything wrong with giving jobs to skilled foreign workers. Yes it does undermine middle class wages, but if these folks become Americans then they have just as much right to make a living as I do. But the H1B guest worker program undermines Amer
If they don't replace they lower the value. (Score:4, Insightful)
Economics 101.
Supply and Demand: If Demand stays constant and supply goes up, cost for services go down.
So during the late 1990's we had a High Demand for Tech, and at the current supply, tech workers were getting exceptional pay and benefits. Then during the Clinton Administration they opened the H1B1 for tech workers, because they saw this as a permanent increase in demand, and wouldn't meet supply in the near future.
However after Y2k settled down and a new infrastructure was setup demand settled (The tech bubble pop), however there is now a glut of tech workers, and H1B1 and the new infrastructures allowed for outsourced IT services. Thus so many tech workers, caused the salaries of tech workers to plummet.
Now technology demand is going up as the Y2k infrastructure is approaching 20 years old. So IT worker salaries are on the rise.... H1B1 increases will cause a drop in salaries, so many tech workers will leave work, as the lower salaries will not be acceptable.
However if a company is trying to stay competitive, and they find if they layoff their local workforce, and hire H1B1 for half the price, then they can make up for the cost of high turnover.
Re: (Score:3)
Asif (Score:3)
Check this action out: 13 million jobs added [rawstory.com], yet from the same article:
So, the actual unemployment rate (the labor force participation rate) was unchanged in spite of thirteen million new jobs, and the number of people who need full-time work to support themselves but are only working part-time is also unchanged, meaning that the number of Americans with unmet needs was unchanged.
How can there be 13M new jobs yet Americans' status hasn't improved?
Re: (Score:2)
How to lie with statistics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What does this actually mean? (Score:3)
But the data show that over the last decade, as businesses have requested more H-1Bs, they also expanded jobs for Americans.
So if this is the "refutation" that H-1B holders replace American workers, I would say this is insufficient proof. It could be that in businesses that are expanding, you see more of both H-1Bs and jobs for Americans, simply because there are more jobs in total.
Like if I'm running a business and I need to hire 2 new programmers for an American office, and I can hire one H-1B worker at a much cheaper price, maybe I hire the H-1B worker and 1 American workers rather than 2 new American workers. In that case, it's true that the H-1B worker is taking a job that would have gone to an American, and also true that as I'm requesting more H-1B, I'm hiring more Americans. Of course, this is a simplified example.
Now I'm not opposed to immigration. I do think there's value in welcoming the best and brightest, even understanding that on a small scale, they'll displace some workers. I'm just not sure what this thing actually proves.
Go abroad (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of people here in the forum fear those people with H1B visas, as they are used to lower wages and increase unemployment. Instead of whining about this obvious bad situation in the US, you could yourself look at relocating yourself to another country. For example you can get paid between 35-55 k€ a year in Germany as a coder or software engineer after leaving university. In US equivalent you have to add another 7% for healthcare and 5% for retirement plan which would be today $43.77k to $68.79k pe
You mean... (Score:5, Informative)
You mean...Microsoft didn't lay off 18,000 people and then lobby Congress to increase the number of H-1B Visas?
You mean...there isn't economic research that refutes that article's premise: "As longtime researchers of the STEM workforce and immigration who have separately done in-depth analyses on these issues, and having no self-interest in the outcomes of the legislative debate, we feel compelled to report that none of us has been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry’s assertions of labor shortages." http://www.epi.org/publication... [epi.org]
Sounds like a page out of the Philip Morris playbook: "cigarettes don't cause cancer" - "H-1B Visa holders don't displace American workers"
And if you believe this... (Score:2)
... I've got a bridge you might want to buy.
1. Over ten years? The whole H1B visa thing has been an accelerating situation. I'd like to see a study that focused on the last couple years.
2. If you read the report they refer a lot to what politicians are saying which is a bad sign in a study. It sounds like a political argument.
3. The correlation versus causation in this "study" is ridiculous... they say "company X hires more stem people than company Y and company X also hires more people period"... and they
of course they do. (Score:2, Interesting)
At my place of employ, H-1B absolutely replace US tech employees. HR here is required to, on some regularity, advertise the H-1B jobs as "open" and entertain applications for the role. The reality of that is that HR advertises for tech skills that we don't even use ... for instance, about a year after starting for the company I noticed a job opening for a developer position that needed "VAX/VMS, Oracle, and Cobol experience" ... funny enough, I happened to know a guy who had over a decade of experience wi
Overall Competitiveness of American Companies (Score:2)
Here's the giveaway... (Score:3)
"...Remember, this is about aggregates, rather than whether some specific job has been replaced...." ...which means it's about lying.
The submitter/editor is specifically trying to contradict what you know otherwise to be true, and so had to remind you that the story's data need to be specifically interpreted to be true.
H-1B at least changes the dynamics (Score:3)
I've been through this on both sides, working for the outsourcer and the outsourcee (as a US citizen for US companies.) What I've seen happen in most instances of worker replacement is this -- CIO signs a huge outsourcing deal with Tata, Infosys, CSC, IBM, HP, Xerox, HCL or one of the other huge consulting companies. This company gets a fixed price per year to deliver the same services the customer's IT department delivered, and this price is usually significantly less than they previously paid for IT employees. (We'll ignore time and materials, change orders, rework, etc. etc. that push the price back up eventually.) Because the outsourcing company has to make a profit on the deal, their task is to provide the minimum service required to avoid contract cancellation, and drive the cheapest cost possible to make it happen. Usually, about 10% of the IT department remains with the company, mostly the business analysts, project managers and other touchy-feely roles that can't be easily done remotely. Some percentage is laid off immediately, and the balance transfers over to the outsourcer. Over time, these workers begin being replaced by H-1Bs or offshore labor because of cost pressures. H-1B labor is brought in to fill roles that absolutely can't be done from some call center environment, and the remaining ones (day to day administration, help desk, etc.) get sent offshore or into a sort of sweatshop "sysadmin farm." This is directly due to cost pressure, and service suffers because of it.
Companies might "create jobs" but they're generally not IT jobs in environments like this. I'm very lucky and now have a system architect level job that I've earned through years of experience in the trenches. What I worry about is that these low level jobs that new grads learn the ropes on are getting harder to find. As it is, I'm often in the position of just telling an offshore team what to do. I don't think arrangements like this are sustainable because you're not building up the next generation of techies to take the high level jobs later on.
I don't know what's taught in MBA school, but I guarantee a good portion of it is telling them that numbers on a spreadsheet are the only data that deserves any weight. I've seen IT outsourcing fail to produce the desired results far more often than it has succeeded. If your company does anything with IT beyond keeping the lights on, you'll be disappointed with an outsourcing arrangement -- but the numbers don't lie, at least in the short term.
Here's what I'd like to see happen: IT and dev workers should create a professional organization similar to the AMA, Screen Actors' Guild. It would have to be anything but a "union" because techies have this individualist streak that prevents them from wanting to associate with others in that way. This organization would do what the AMA does -- limit the number of new entrants, lobby for laws to be passed that favor its members, and ensure professional standards. Low level tech work would be on an apprenticeship basis, which would allow people to learn from experienced folks rather than the hodgepodge of self-teaching, vendor certification, etc. High level engineers/architects would be professionals, with responsibilities similar to actual, real PEs. I know most people think they're super-special and would never dare to compare themselves to their peers, let alone associate with them. But this is the best long-term solution -- it keeps tech a well-paying career, ensures that we can bribe Congressmen the same way businesses do, etc.
H1Bs only for jobs above 90th percentile (Score:3)
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Informative)
This just means there's more demand for skilled workers than h1b's and native talent pool combined.
It means there's more demand for CHEAPER skilled workers than the native talent pool has.
I've heard stories from a technical director at a major American firm where they'd reject PHDs simply because they were worried they'd leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. Their opinion was "why employ someone who wants more in terms of benefits, vacation, pay, etc when we can bring in someone who is completely under our control, easily replaceable/dismissable as needed, and cheaper". Control is the real crux of it - these workers are completely at the whim of the company because once the company is done with them they can't seek another job they must return home. That lets them abuse the crap out of them and if they complain they get sent home and someone else is brought in to take their place.
Cost of labor is always a problem for companies (Score:5, Insightful)
It means there's more demand for CHEAPER skilled workers than the native talent pool has.
There is ALWAYS demand for less expensive labor. Sometimes it isn't available. Sometimes companies engage in measures to reduce labor costs. Importing cheaper labor is fundamentally no different than offshoring the work. The basic goal is the same - to reduce labor costs. I run a manufacturing company and we do all our work domestically and pay as much as we can but our competition does a lot of their work in Central America or China so we really cannot compete on jobs with a high labor content unless there are special requirements like engineering help or just in time delivery. We simply cannot pay much more than we do and remain competitive.
Some companies are obviously engaged in some shady tactics to keep labor costs down. The tactics may be reprehensible but the fact that they are trying to contain labor costs should surprise no one. In a competitive market companies HAVE to try to do that. It's particularly galling though when the company has huge profit margins like Microsoft or Facebook does. A low margin manufacturing company might go out of business if they don't keep a tight lid on labor costs. A hugely profitable tech company has no such excuse.
I've heard stories from a technical director at a major American firm where they'd reject PHDs simply because they were worried they'd leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere.
It's not just PHDs. I have a pair of masters degrees and I've been told point-blank during interviews that they were afraid I would get bored and leave or seek higher paying work. It's incredibly short sighted but it happens pretty routinely.
Re:Cost of labor is always a problem for companies (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a fundamental difference. Offsoring requires you to either give up control of hte workers, via third party companies, or build an office in the country. In addition importing labor allows you to continue to use the infrastructure in the host country, which may not be good in the other country.
Containing labor costs (Score:3)
There is a fundamental difference.
There are differences but they are not fundamental ones. The goal is to keep labor costs low. The mechanics of how this happens is secondary. Sending production to another country does add some logistical overhead but they wouldn't bother if it didn't result in a net gain on labor costs. Importing H1Bs or other cheap labor has different logistical hassles but they wouldn't bother if it didn't result in a net gain on labor costs. You're getting bogged down in worrying about the logistics but missing the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All true. Except here's the thing...
Artificially increasing the size of a growing labor pool depresses wages in the market. We really do have enough of most IT and CS specialties covered by internal workers. Bringing these visa holders in pushes wages down generally. It also creates a form of indentured servitude among the holders themselves. Which got me thinking that I might actually agree with Trump on this topic (proof anything is possible). One means of reducing this is to impose a condition that the v
Re:Cost of labor is always a problem for companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Tech is the fastest growing and one of the highest paid job sectors and requires substantial investment in terms of time and education on the part of the workers. These are the jobs those losing jobs in manufacturing are supposed to be able to learn skills for and take on as a career. There is nowhere to go from here.
In the company I'm working for now I'm considered to be at the highest rank an engineer can obtain. This is a massive telecom/service provider/cloud company who will not be named. Every tier below has either been moved offshore or replaced by H1-B workers. With regard to my peers all full time US hiring is frozen and contracts are filled with a preference for H1-B's only resorting to US talent when no H1-B is available (this is the opposite of how it's supposed to work). In tech your salaries generally don't go up so upward mobility comes from shifting positions. Someone who stays in positions for a year or two is equivalent to 20 year+ in positions in the financial industry. When anyone shifts out they are replaced with an H1-B if at all possible regardless of why they left. In the last 1.5yrs my team went from being entirely US staff (mostly full time but a few contractors who were routinely converted once they'd proven themselves) to 50% H1-B Contractors.
We are talking about thousands of jobs. But hey, on the up side the difficulties with accent are disappearing because client organizations are filling with the same H1-B workers and they all have the same accent.
Re: (Score:3)
The tactics may be reprehensible but the fact that they are trying to contain labor costs should surprise no one.
And let's not deceive ourselves here - this isn't a case of paying the cashiers a buck less an hour and Passing The Savings On To You!(tm). This is taking that forty bucks a week per person and plowing it right into executive bonuses. Throw a part of that to middle management for "controlling costs", and you end up with places where no-one knows how to make a hamburger anymore.
Re:Cost of labor is always a problem for companies (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't even HAVE a degree and I've run into this sort of thing.
Yes, this. Employers created this situation by being more willing to hire people who already have jobs, and now they're worried about the situation where some other employer is more willing to hire someone who has a job.
Before I had even my useless two year degree (it filled time, I learned some stuff) I had already experienced this, where I was too qualified for positions at which I'd have been perfectly happy.
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:4, Informative)
these workers are completely at the whim of the company because once the company is done with them they can't seek another job they must return home. That lets them abuse the crap out of them and if they complain they get sent home and someone else is brought in to take their place.
That is incorrect. If the management thinks that they probably have not researched it properly. Once here on their H1-b can moe to any company willing to take over the H1-B.
Re: (Score:2)
How many days do they have once fired from a company to get someone to take it over?
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Informative)
How many days do they have once fired from a company to get someone to take it over?
30. In theory. In practice, nobody is really monitoring that closely. We have 10 million illegal Mexicans, so a handful of Indians bending the rules isn't a big concern.
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Interesting)
So since the interview process takes 22 days on average now that means the person has 8 days to get an interview to remain legal.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not referring to people quitting or being poached. I'm referring to companies firing these workers.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're in any of the software development hotspots, this just isn't an issue. Companies understand the rush, and in general use "fast response" as a recruiting tactic.
Yup. I work in Silicon Valley, and we make job offers face-to-face at the end of the interview. Many candidates accept on the spot. Some sleep on it, and then call back and accept the next day.
There is NO evidence that a long drawn out hiring process results in better outcomes. While you are dragging your feet, the best candidates are accepting offers elsewhere, leaving you with the dregs that nobody else wants.
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Interesting)
That is incorrect. If the management thinks that they probably have not researched it properly. Once here on their H1-b can moe to any company willing to take over the H1-B.
Actually, you are not fully correct either. Well, ostensibly you are correct, but here's what really happens:
* The vast majority of H1-B workers are tied to Infosys, Tata, Wipro or some other India-HQ'd company as their sponsor, which means if the worker complains, said worker is recalled to India and quickly replaced. Huge corps like Nike *love* this kind of arrangement (this is a real-world example - Nike is a huge customer of Infosys). This in turn gives the client corporation (e.g. Nike) full control over their charges while their charges are in the US - one complaint from the corporation, and Infosys/Tata/Wipro does all the dirty work for them and provides a replacement within literal days.
* the second part of your sentence, "...any company willing to take over the H1-B" is the condition that undoes the rule. Kindly tell me how many companies are willingly going to take on someone under those conditions? Doing so w/o a company like Infosys/Tata/etc means expense and paperwork...
QED, 'mano :)
Re: (Score:2)
under the conditions of an H1-B? or under the conditions of infosys you stated? From my understanding once the employee leaves infosys for another company then infosys does not have control anymore. the expense is a very small portion of the person's salary, so really that just means some extra paperwork.
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Insightful)
From my understanding once the employee leaves infosys for another company then infosys does not have control anymore.
That's the thing - the H1-B would have to quit first (*if* another company is willing to take him on), which would be an escape. However, as noted, it is an added expense. Also, if the client company complains, the H1-B usually gets recalled to India for 'reassignment'. I cannot claim to know what happens after that, but unless that H1-B has a rare skill, I bet it isn't pretty. Note that this is technically illegal [h1base.com], but yet it's still there, as evidenced by the relationship between, say, Infosys and their client companies.
You claim it is a small part of the person's salary, but it still requires work from the new company's HR department, so unless they already have someone there set up to handle H1-B visas, they'll have to spend the time to do it (which in turn costs money) - and no, unlike your assertion, it is not a simple matter [usavisanow.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority ... you mean 50,000 out of 160,000 ?
Yes, indian companies abuse the H1-B system and it's in great part their fault if there is a debate on H1-B. But no, the majority of H1-B workers are not "slaves".
The "top" H1-B list [myvisajobs.com] says it all : a lot of indian companies with low average salaries, and a long tail of legitimate companies trying to hire foreign talent.
Disclaimer : H1-B here.
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Insightful)
But no, the majority of H1-B workers are not "slaves".
Of course not, nowadays we call them "salaried employees" instead. Have you seen the 10th Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Top 10 is 71+K. Get rid of them, all of a sudden there's a whole lot fewer H1Bs in country. I'm sure if you go down the list, you'll find more in "consulting" roles. MS is #11, how many of their consultants are H1Bs vs the rest of the employees? By the time you get to companies with less than 50 H1Bs, I'm pretty sure you'll have wiped out the large majority of H1Bs. Having done consulting, no one does consulting for an average 70K a year in the manner these do. It's not worth it. I doubt most will have more
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kindly tell me how many companies are willingly going to take on someone under those conditions?
Here in Silicon Valley, "stealing" H1Bs from other companies is a common occurrence. Hiring them away from a competitor is way easier than doing all the paperwork to bring them direct from India. My company has done some stealing, and we have also been stolen from.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:4, Insightful)
> I've heard stories from a technical director at a major American firm where they'd reject PHDs
> simply because they were worried they'd leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere.
Employers who think this way will ultimately hire the employees they deserve.
Pay is not the only thing that attracts a person to a job (or keeps them there). A person leaves
for a *better* job, which may or may not mean it offers higher pay.
Re: (Score:2)
One Hundred Million Americans of working age NOT in the wok force.
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Informative)
you realize there is only about 167m Americans of working age right? You mean that the unemployment rate is at 60%? Out of 318m people, 47.4% are not of the working age. http://quickfacts.census.gov/q... [census.gov]
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you mean Resession, not Depression. Also even if it were at 25% that would still not equate to 100m workers, so that still does not make sense...
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
One Hundred Million Americans of working age NOT in the wok force.
Oh please, I bet there aren't even 100 million woks in the entire country.
If there were, we'd be up to our asses in stir-fry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this. ( sorry I was going to mod here, but I have to post, even though I signed into hypothesis annotations https://hypothes.is/stream [hypothes.is] and marked this article up all over ).
There is an *association* between H 1B and hiring because H 1B is granted in areas of relatively high demand for labor, and so total hiring is bound to increase in those areas. This doesn't mean H 1B is causing the hiring, it's merely that those who are hiring are hiring H 1B.
Also, companies put their budgets where it will solve their problems. They hire contractors to get more labor quick. This article says that H 1Bs are paid more than Americans so they can't be replacing them. THEY ARE. By keeping incentives low to be contractors, they are replacing would-be American contractors.
Also they prevent companies from being creative to fill positions by doing things like partnering with local educational institutions, running training programs, and helping financially with prospective employee's education.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. If the two jobs would not have been created if H1B workers were not available, then one American job would have been created. Not saying this is the case, just pointing out the flaw in your logic. This is a complex issue. There is also something even larger: The US economy. If it does worse without H1Bs, that can mean both a better or worse situation for American workers, it could even mean a better situation for American workers, but a worse situation for Americans overall, depends all on
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. If the two jobs would not have been created if H1B workers were not available,
Wait. What?
Re: (Score:2)
I think OP means that _IF_, due to a less expensive H1B hire, the company is able to post 2 jobs rather than their normal one, then the "one job lost" calculation is thrown off.
Perhaps a bit clunky explanation but I understood the post to indicate "there are a lot of variables that may factor in to this equation, for which a simple math calculation may not give an accurate picture."
Re: (Score:2)
It may also well be that none of the two jobs would have been created without the availability of an H1B for one of them, giving a net gain in American jobs from H1B. A possible scenario is that both jobs would have been off-shored without the one H1B worker.
You are spot on that simple math (that ignores most of the factors by its nature) is not enough. Sure, I think that companies wanting more H1Bs are mostly into getting cheap workers, but what the actual effect on the job market is, is far from clear.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a very simple thing -- even though H-1Bs were meant to be hired on as true experts, the program is being used the same way businesses in the early 1900s hired scabs when unions were striking, or hired Chinese labor in large quantities to build railroads... only thing that stopped that was Americans threatening to burn down factories.
We saw the same shit back in the 1990s. Japan was good, US workers were lazy.
Now, it is the same thing with so many games used for companies to say they "need" a H-1B:
1:
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Large numbers of H1B visas are no problem, is a neo liberal/neo conservative statement. Commies would try to protect the workforce from foreign competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why engage in a serious discussion when you can just blame someone else for the misery. For example, last time they could vote, they voted most likely Republican or Democrat (not that it matters that much) and they most likely did so before. And every time they do not like the outcome. But instead of changing their choice the next time in an election, they whine about the situation and elect the same jerks over and over again. They could vote for the Green party or even organize something new.
Neither Trump
Re: (Score:2)
Ding ding ding, you got it in one.
This is also why every time some poor idiot pulls out the "($Unskilled_Profession) wants $15 an hour? I'm ($Skilled_Profession) and I don't even make that!" argument a Walmart heir's nipples tingle. Because the minimum wage being so low doesn't just hurt the working class, it artificially forces all wages down -- in short, your wage is supposed to be much higher too, but it isn't because they're getting away with paying Burger Flippers slave wages.
Depending on if you're c
Two logic errors (Score:5, Insightful)
I see two obvious errors in logic in this analysis.
1. Rising total employment of Americans does not mean that other Americans were not replaced by H1B holders. If there were no H1Bs, employment of Americans would have been even higher. What sloppy logic!
2. From the article: "If H-1Bs were primarily cheaper substitutes for American labor, the pace of H-1B requests...should rise when unemployment rises, as employers look to cut labor costs by laying off workers." In what universe does this logic make sense? If unemployment is higher, cheaper labor can be obtained by hiring more Americans since they are having a harder time finding a job. The actual results are completely consistent with H1Bs being a cheaper replacement for American workers.
Re:Two logic errors (Score:5, Interesting)
Well said.
They concluded that for every 3 new jobs in the tech sector, since 1 went to H1B and 2 went to residents, then that H1B created 2 jobs. I kid you not. It's a short article; you can read it yourself. They totally ignore the real question, which is whether all 3 of those new jobs could have been filled by residents. Likewise all upwards trends in tech, incl. wage increases, are attributed to H1B with absolutely nothing backing that correlation - only pretty graphs showing the jobs and wages going up.