This is an open secret in tech. Visa holders have less job offers to negotiate with, less job mobility, and consequently get paid less. Companies preferentially hire them over Americans.
Further, the recent actions making harder for "body shops" like Infosys are actually helping big tech companies win more visa lotteries. This means the recent action that was supposed to help American workers, is actually causing the best jobs to shift more to immigrants and less to Americans.
The whole visa and immigration system needs huge reform. I am not anti immigrant but the immigration system disproportionately hurts American software engineers and American tech. You don't see many visa holders working in sales and marketing, or teaching, or law, mostly just software engineering (at the high end) and then migrant farming and illegal immigrant factory workers (at the low end).
If we gave immigrants more job mobility (notably not attaching the people to the company they work with or making the process so complicated that you need corporate sponsors to go through) then wages would basically be the same as for locals.
Software engineering has the lowest unemployment of any major job category in the world. Beyond it being the right thing to do, making it easier for people abroad to work in the US with the same level of freedoms granted to citizens (including the “right” to get poached at a higher salary) would only help the industry and those within it
Another thing: if software engineers weren’t afraid of unionizing, then companies would have a hell of a lot harder time slowly replacing you with cheaper counterparts. Demanding equal pay for equal work, no matter where your coworkers came from, attacks the core of the problem
Maybe I'm misreading you, but why do they have to move to the US at all? I had a few foreign coworkers that were being paid very competitive salaries while working remotely from Europe and Asia. They came to visit a couple times a year, for a few weeks at a time, and that was it.
I'm happy to work with people all over the world, I don't need to see you face-to-face every day. I really enjoy seeing people a few times a year, but that's only because I genuinely like them and I enjoy spending time in meatspace with them. But I never felt like my job was impaired by having people at different time zones. If anything, it was awesome! I'd put up a PR before going to sleep and by the time I went in to work the next day it would be ready to merge. If any serious discussion had to happen, we'd just use video chat to resolve big issues.
What benefits would unionizing provide? I'm not actively against it, but I don't see any clear reasons to be in favor of it either.
Could you enumerate some of those benefits? I'm not seeing the "better pay" in any example I've seen online. And benefits are questionable, and rather subjective. I don't want my job to provide anything, I want them to pay me a lot of money and let me take care of my problems without becoming involved. Most "job benefits" are just bullhshit and ways to cut taxes.
I don't mind talking to HR. You should always hire a lawyer if you're having any serious discussions anyway, so I don't see in what way a union would help me. If your HR department won't let you discuss something without a lawyer present, that's a clear sign you need to leave immediately.
Your power is that you have an influential position within the company, and if you leave it will cause them to have to hire someone and teach them all the intricacies of your industry. This takes a lot of time and it's incredibly expensive.
If an engineer is fired for a bullshit reason (i.e. I don't like em), other engineers will speak up if they think it's unjustified. I'll also make sure to publicly express my criticisms of the company so nobody within my social circle will seriously consider joining.
Maybe a union makes more sense for a larger company, but so far I'm unconvinced by your points. Like I said, I'm not against unions, but I'm unclear as to what benefits I'd get for joining one.
I can easily imagine all manner of horrors following unionizing. I can imagine the Certified AgileTM types getting into the game and making all kinds of horrible silly rules for their benefit, wave upon wave of people who do not have a passion for software design of any sort but merely view it as a hollow vehicle to extract rent by entrenching themselves in processes. I can imagine the same sort of ridiculousness you find in every stodgy old mega company with armies of lifelong paper pushing cogs now being mandated. Perhaps as a concession they'll carve out exemptions for smaller companies. How nice of them. You already see this behavior any time there is any sort of certification or legal requirements involved it quickly gets weaponized and draws in armies of box-ticking auditors who's favorite word is no and have basically zero interest in the material facts that originally motivated their existence.
> I'll also make sure [..] within my social circle
> what benefits I'd get
A business usually consists of a group of employees, some may benefit more than others, clearly you may be in the others category. But maybe some of your colleagues aren't as vocal or brave as you, or maybe they can't afford to risk losing their job etc. That's solidarity, not tweeting about something after-the-fact for the benefit of your own social circle.
That said, the highly skilled, strictly individual-minded person clearly have benefits to reap too. Comparing with most West-European countries, like:
> What benefits would unionizing provide? I'm not actively against it, but I don't see any clear reasons to be in favor of it either.
After being in Germany and also working with them I am really impressed by the union and the strong labour laws that they have. Really helps in the work life balance for them and how I really wish my country had it.
GP was worried about problems that unionization can help to tackle, if only to counter the massive power imbalance between the owners of capital and the workers.
As for remote work: I’m 100% good with that, but I also believe people shouldn’t be constrained from living in the general area they would like to if they have the means. Also , a lot of people simply don’t like remote work in the first place, and there can also be similar wage depression effects (and other political issues) that can make it a less-than-ideal situation
Demanding equal pay for equal work, no matter where your coworkers came from, attacks the core of the problem
One of the things that makes this difficult for software is that there's not a clear way of defining "equal work". Every company has its own leveling system that may or may not reflect the actual value of the work being performed, and sometimes employees justifiably exceed their designated level's salary.
> the immigration system disproportionately hurts American software engineers and American tech
The immigration debate suffers from overgeneralisation. Illegal immigration is a different problem from legal immigration. And short-term skilled migrants are unlike long-term skilled immigrants. Short-term migrants, i.e. those with no intention of staying in the U.S. long-term, probably depress American wages. Skilled immigrants aiming for residency, and certain classes of unskilled illegal immigrants, appear to add net value.
(Exhibit A of our system's self-destructiveness are international students at American universities being refused residency on graduation.)
However over the last 20 years, most immigration, of both kinds, have been about one thing: reduced labor costs.
At the risk of downvotes, I’m going to include something Steve Bannon said on MSNBC last night about legal immigration. He made this point that it makes no sense for America to keep letting the best and brightest of the world in / draining them from everywhere else. Why aren’t we refusing the really good immigrants if anything? Those are the people we want in their home countries setting up fair and stable systems. Having them here is, after a certain point, kind of greedy.
Also free trade was supposed to fix this by also requiring companies to adhere to strict safety and labor laws, which would make labor prices more even. It never happened.
> Why aren’t we refusing the really good immigrants if anything?
Steve Jobs' father was a Syrian immigrant [1]. It is doutbtful that Steve Jobs--or Elon Musk or Satya Nadella--would have been as successful in their original countries as they've been here. As a species, we all win from giving our best and brightest access to America's stable institutions and rich economy.
More to the point, I find it difficult to believe Steve Bannon suddenly cares about other countries. His line about the overabundance of brown-skinned executives in Silicon Valley is telling enough.
> Exhibit A of our system's self-destructiveness are international students at American universities being refused residency on graduation.
You cannot categorically say that all international students are "highly skilled" or even "skilled". Some are, some aren't; and I'm saying this as an Indian citizen on H1B in the United States. There has to be some kind of vetting period instead of handing off a green card right after graduation. I bet if the tables were turned you won't see anywhere close to this kind of generosity.
Regarding Cisco (downvote me if you want) not a lot of people do "skilled" work; Cisco is a sales machine and does not care about engineering. Fixing bugs (and passing them off as features) from companies which were acquired, doing busy work, attending 2-3 hour meetings, middle management malaise with paper pushers, maintaning status quo (it's 2018 and they still use gcc 3.3) etc. is not what I would define as "skilled" engineering work. It's mediocrity and that's what they want to maintain.
> is actually causing the best jobs to shift more to immigrants and less to Americans.
Just to be clear: people on H-1B are not immigrants as it is a non-immigrant visa. They only become immigrants if and when they adjust status and get a green card at which point none of the limitations you listed will apply anymore.
>They only become immigrants if and when they adjust status and get a green card at which point none of the limitations you listed will apply anymore.
But that process takes years--during that time all of those limitations do apply. And once they do apply, changing employers can reset the application process, adding yet another disincentive to changing jobs.
Also since tech salaries are so much higher in the US than nearly anywhere else, most H-1B workers want to stay in the US for a significant length of time (even if they don't plan to stay forever)--during that time it is harder for them to switch jobs than it is for permanent residents.
Sales recruiter here: yep, companies will not sponsor visas for salespeople at all.
Also, New Zealander working on getting his Greencard: it's a real bummer seeing what some of the bigger tech companies have done with the H1B visa in the past 10 years. They've really abused it and ruined it for everyone.
Why not increase the visa quota, or better yet, remove it altogether, since all the H1b Visas are people with job offers, with an employer that wants them.
Also, you cant get an H1B for sales. Ask the U.S. Government about that, they put that restriction.
Attracting the most talented immigrants is exactly what this country needs to grow its economy. There are nearly no unemployed top talent, and talent (including immigrants) grows demand. Look how many startups are spawned from the top tech company veterans. Taking in brilliant immmigrants is a defenst against the whole industry shifting the balance of power to a different country.
This is my exact argument against h1b, but something tells me you didn't mean it that way.
The fact is if we want to truly attract the best and brightest we need to give them citizenship and pay them for their superior skills.
As it is now we aren't attracting the best and brightest but the slightly skilled and willing to take a gamble and endure the cruelty of our immigration system. These are typically young people which exacerbates the agism problem in tech.
That’s a consequence of the US’s particular implementation of talent visas (H1B being tied to employer), not an argument against attracting high skilled workers.
(I think most people on this forum would agree H1B needs reform ?)
As an H1B, while there is employer tie in at some level, I am free to change jobs. What I am not free to do is to stop working. That fear certainly does indirectly result in lesser job mobility.
For example, opportunities like say going to Recurse Center, or having the freedom to have a decently long sabbatical etc. even with a 6 month emergency fund are not available. The other thing is no freedom to pursue any other job, i.e working on a startup idea during the evenings or weekend, or writing a technical book etc. for money is not allowed.
There are certainly issues with the H1b system, i.e. the lottery, low salary cap, multiple applications per person to game the system etc, but employer stickiness is not one of them, at least for people who are qualified.
The major problem is due to long wait for green card for people from China, and almost impossible wait for people from India. My friends who were not born in these two countries have been able to get a green card within about a year, after getting an H1B, while I am looking at a more than 20-30 year wait.
That is irrelevant. They get paid more compared to what immigrants would get in their home countries. And if you had to pay them as much then they would lose the edge during hiring - it is part of why they are also chosen.
However wage arbitrage is specifically against the intent and the letter of visa programs. It’s to fill actual shortages. If you can’t find a Python dev at $70k per year but you could find one at $100k per year, that isn’t a “shortage” — yet such “shortages” are what gets used to rationalize H1-B expansion.
I'd like to add that part of the factor that's driving down wages is the fact that workers from countries with cheap/subsidized higher-level education can get a bachelor's degree for under $5000 (total), meaning that a student from a foreign country getting a master's degree from an American university graduates with around 1/3 the total debt that an American student would. That advantage makes it more feasible to take lower paying jobs in the first place, thus broadening the talent pool, which inherently drives wages down.
Thats not how salaries are negotiated. Any worker picks the job that suits him best. If you have A and B in the US, and C in your home country, you will pick the best of the three, not "not C".
I agree — the typical path is the abusive H1 system, which is dangled as a carrot by outsourceds in India to retain talent in hopes of getting an assignment here.
It’s a form of indentured labor that should be forbidden.
My grandparents were all skilled blue collar workers who needed a sponsor and a medical exam to enter and eventually get citizenship in the 1940s. There’s no reason that skilled labor from anywhere should not be able to immigrate here on the same terms.
That's great except that H1B is not supposed to be used to suppress domestic salaries or replace existing workers (Disney IT). This is openly happening and the government won't do anything to correct this illegal behavior. It's 2018 and Trump's executive order has amounted to nothing.
Consider these 2016 numbers from USCIS [1] (Can't find 2017 data. Wonder why). All of the Indian body shops pay sub-$90K as their average salary whereas all of the top domestic sponsors are paying significantly more. I'm sure the medians are even worse. So all a US company has to do is play the contractor shuffle and get cheaper labor. Also note that there are no listings for people with master's or doctorate degrees. H1B is clearly not being used for its intended effect.
The effect on wages is inconclusive based on the salary of the people that come in. Its possible the 90k range puts more downward pressure on salaries than the 150 that come about. They all have effects on wages but also create value for the whole. The more immigrants come the more total salaries paid for the workers is, even if the mean is lower.
If they are actually “brilliant.” Some Windows sysadmin a year out of school working for Infosys is typically not your future Google founder. If they are actually brilliant, there are visas for that and it isn’t H1-B.
> The whole visa and immigration system needs huge reform. I am not anti immigrant but the immigration system disproportionately hurts American software engineers and American tech.
We will build the most fantastic firewall ever made, and we will make the foreign engineers pay for it!
There are a lot of immigrants in other fields are well.
Sales maybe not as the skill required for sales is very
hard to measure (maybe thats why).
Marketing: High level marketing executives are transfered to US regularly. Also I maybe wrong but they can come under
the artist visa if they are related to anything artistic
and don't need H1B.
Teaching: High school salaries are pathetic and high schools wont even apply for an H1B. A lot of professors in good universities are immigrants. A lot researchers in Top universities are also immigrants.
Law : The problem is that you have to do your law degree here to get entry into law, but I have seen a lot of immigrants doing that.
Not in your list but Medicine: A lot of people are in medicine as well even though they have to take an exam (? or something) to see if they are trained according to US standards.
Tech has most number of immigrants because large tech companies are headquartered in US, thats it.
For example, a lot of doctors go to UK, because demand and NIH.
I know a lot of mechanical and chemical engineers being
hired by Schlum (even though its technically not a US company).
Go to any US university and you will see a lot of immigrants in any technical fields training and have pretty good jobs lined up for them after graduation.
> I am not anti immigrant but the immigration system disproportionately hurts American software engineers and American tech
Cry me a river. Do you also complain about internal migration towards cities like San Francisco and Boston. It's the same principal at play. Tech workers from all over the US flock to cities where the wealth is. Tech workers from around the world flock to the US because that's where the wealth is. It's not because we like stealing your job.
Developing software is an investment and the people that fund the investment seem to prefer (at least the core of the team) to live nearby. But if you put a hard-stop on immigration. Or if it gets too expensive for people to live nearby, they might just start looking for the talent wherever it is like @dhh.
> The Visa lottery system keeps workers locked into lower paying wages that what they could get as full citizens under the same exact circumstances.
FYI - you can switch jobs in H1B. I don't live in the USA, but everyone I know who is from my home country (India) and is on a H1B and in tech, have switched jobs atleast once (mostly between FB, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Amazon).
OTOH, if you're talking about L1 Visa (which is NOT a lottery system), then everyone I know who is on L1 (interestingly they are all at Amazon and Microsoft), then I agree - none of them have switched jobs so far.
I'm all for more lenient immigration laws. But I'm not sure where this idea comes from that people with H1Bs are like indentured servants. I moved jobs twice in 6 years. Getting one in the first place is a lottery but once you have one it doesn't seem like much of a hurdle to get a renewal with a different company.
It's not about stealing jobs it's about jobs offering less compensation and benefits than what they would normally because they can exploit the inherent risks of immigrating to lock people into less substantial employment contracts.
That's not absolutist true, but this is the type of study I would like the government to invest in with my tax dollars. We should know how often this is the outcome.
> The real secret is that this is the only thing that keeps tech onshore.
If this was the only thing it would have gone offshore more than a decade ago. The reason is hasn't gone offshore is because the results are terrible for a number of reasons, with precious few success stories. It is a tried and failed technique to cut software costs.
Remember, the engineers who work on the top-tier SV firms will also be going offshore. With that talent pool abroad, many more offshore projects than now will be successful.
Also, even now India exports $100B+ worth of software services to US. It is not as if every project offshored is producing "terrible results".
Paying maximum viable cost for minimum viable output is the type of outsourcing that you're thinking of. India, Eastern Europe, etc is full of smart people capable of doing pretty much anything. Being located in California doesn't give you super-powers.
Already happened. My company has sent notice to us that international hired employees are preferentially located to Canada and other sites instead of US, since it is difficult to get a visa here.
People are selfish, so I don't blame them for want to close the door and keep the outsiders outside so they can have a bigger share of the pie.
But don't expect to see that happen either, companies nowadays are much more powerful than individuals and they are very nimble, they will go to places where cost is lower, this won't change a bit, it is in their blood.
So to immigrants coming to US, don't really put much hope in spending decades waiting to get permit to not in living in fear of throwing out. Doesn't worth it. And the resentment towards immigrants is worsening everyday, unless you happen to have certain skin tone. So earn your bucks, and save more, when the time comes take your life and skill elsewhere, life is too short to just wait in vain and hope for the best, act swiftly and you will be happier ;)
You think salary negotiations are somehow immune to those same price pressures when we are dealing with the ppl who mow lawns, pick produce, and clean bathrooms?
The OP likely is talking about tech because it's what he knows. But generally, as a Canadian who has hired immigration lawyers and knows the US immigration process well, you are never getting into the US to "mow lawns, pick produce, and clean bathrooms"... almost all the long term Visas require an advanced degree (4yrs of university) or equivalent in experience in an industry in high demand (doctors, engineers, etc).
You may be mistaking illegal immigration with legal.
That’s true of certain visas. There are a variety of different visas.
I grew up next to an orchard that almost exclusively used Jamaican guest workers to pick apples and other fruit. Same thing with horse tracks, etc. There is no farm operating at any significant scale that isn’t using migrant labor, mostly legal.
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
" I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy."
Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they serve the community in some way.
Ergo, if corps serve only the benefit of shareholders and not really consumers or anyone else ... and the population derives no benefit ... then those people would vote to disable the very concept of incorporation, after all, why do they want these things around?
Clearly a case can be made for hiring some foreigners.
And more apt - if Cisco can benefit a lot from hiring people from India, it may be better for everyone if they are actually hired and working in India proper.
It's very reasonable for companies to consider locals for jobs 'all things being equal' ... even though they never are :)
> Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they serve the community in some way.
Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they provide them with a beneficial service/product(s). I seriously doubt most citizens/consumers understand (or care about) the philanthropy implied by your statement. Do you really think people around the world would stop using google because they prefered to hire non-local folks? Some super small minority of folks (the 'locals') might care, but the vast majority of their customer base would be none the wiser.
> and not really consumers or anyone else ... and the population derives no benefit ... then those people would vote to disable the very concept of incorporation
No, they'd go bankrupt because their business model didn't include a viable way for them to survive.
Hiring locals is not philanthropy and people generally care quite a lot about it, that's why ABC corp can't hire anyone in the world and just bring them to America.
Remember that hiring foreigners doesn't just mean 'work' - it means bringing them into the country and all that entails.
Companies follow the law of the land, written by government for the benefit of its citizens (and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants).
Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully).
Edit: My apologies for reiterating this here (I mention it in a child comment), I don’t want to be verbose but I also don’t want to comment all over the place and risk a throttling flag: If you are a company and relocate, a country has many tools at it’s disposal to retaliate, and they should be used when necessary (see how the US almost drove ZTE to insolvency).
The companies will be happy to relocate, there is nothing keeping them in a specific spot (unless it's a mining company or a company serving a very local market -- both are not the type of tech we are talking about)
> written by government for the benefit of its citizens
But why, or perhaps more importantly, why should this be the case? Why should citizenship (which is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government) mean a person is more deserving of anything than non-citizen residents? It's not like naturalized citizens did anything to earn their citizenship.
Because citizens are stakeholders in their government. Everyone else is not. Naturalized citizens earn their citizenship through a well defined process [1].
> The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of government.
> Support and defend the Constitution. Stay informed of the issues affecting your community. Participate in the democratic process. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. Participate in your local community. Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities. Serve on a jury when called upon. Defend the country if the need should arise.
"Earning" citizenship has nothing to do with your own choices. It depends on your country of origin and the American public's openly racist opinions about the relative merit of people from your country. It's a given that any immigrant wants to become a US citizen, but quotas deny them that chance.
This is just like the NIMBYs. Work to deny people the opportunity to become "stakeholders," then use your success in doing so to claim their needs don't matter.
The birth lottery is a poor indicator of deservingness. This behavior, on the other hand, is bright-as-day proof of its absence.
How so? Because citizens can vote? Because citizens have some legal protections that don't apply to non-citizens? Doesn't that mean that non-citizens actually have more of a stake in the competence and behavior of the government because they have much more to lose from certain government actions?
I'm unsure how we can argue this any further. You're arguing "what supports the existence of the concept of citizenship and a sovereign nation". That is the legal framework (across nations) we've agreed upon.
I have no inherent problem with the concept of citizenship, I just point out that it is arbitrary, and more importantly, I don’t think it should be the threshold for the people the government should be expected to protect or support.
>and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants
Concern about the "challenges" of too many brown people in your country is usually just called "racism."
It’s not the color of their skin, it’s their contribution as citizens (mostly; some immigrants don’t want to assimilate into their host country culture, which again is not a racial issue, it’s a cultural issue). Point me to a country that takes in unskilled immigrants on a visa for anything other than farm labor (in limited quantities).
If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except under extenuating circumstances (ie political asylum)? You must be able to contribute in a meaningful way.
EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.
I’m not suspicious. The land wasn’t shared, it was taken by force and the people it was taken from were either massacred or rounded up onto reservations where they slowly die out from poverty today. Nothing today can change what was done; that doesn’t make open borders and unlimited immigration penance for our historical wrongs.
>Being selective about who a country allows in as a resident or citizen isn’t immoral.
Maybe not, if the selection process were primarily concerned with individual merit. But it isn't. We decide which races to allow as residents or citizens, then throw the individuals into a lottery, with good odds for white countries and bad odds for brown ones. Discriminating on ancestry or proxies for ancestry (like nationality) to keep underprivileged groups down and privileged groups comfortable is immoral. So is denying others the same opportunities benefitted from merely because they came later.
Would your own family tree's entrypoints to the US pass your test?
So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example? Because companies can move, and have done so many times in the past 30 years. That is basically what such restrictions lead to.
>So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example
That is almost always threatened and almost always never happens.
As toomuchtodo suggests, this lassez-faire culture with business needs to stop. Every year it's a different scandal, we need to stop tip-toeing around business. They rely on a nation's education system, transport, internet infrastructure etc, they didn't come from nothing. China and India in these respects are doing very well, and I'm sure their citizens are thankful.
I am, and I am fine with tariffing their products if they do so, or going so far as to invalidate their patents or IP (as India does with some pharmaceuticals). China just plain ol shuts you out of their market entirely!
A company only exists because a nation state allows it. That formation can be revoked at any time.
@toomuchtodo: no, at scale, they don't. And in tech, a country has very little to offer unless it possesses something you can't get elsewhere, which the USA doesn't.
Why do you think there is so much 'business' going on between larger enterprises and government at many levels? It's all to keep them around, not because it's the best fit. Take Amazon, they want to build an office, so all states and counties and whatever else you have in local government bends over backwards to try and reel them in.
>> Why not hire the best no matter where they come from?
Here's what H1-B actually works if you hire "the best": you hire people who are way overqualified for the job, and pay them peanuts while they are on H1-B. "But H1-B requires that they are paid no less than US workers" you might reasonably object. There's a loophole for that: just hire them at a way lower job ladder level than an American would consider adequate, and don't promote them as much. It's not like they have much of a choice anyway: they can either work here or GTFO to their country of origin within 2 weeks.
I liked Trump's proposal that only the highest paid positions get H1-B visas. That way economic incentives essentially turn H1-B into an auction for the truly great people, and make life easier for fresh US grads. I'm not sure what happened to that proposal. It was probably smothered in the crib by FANG lobbyists.
Full disclosure: I'm a former H1-B, now a naturalized US citizen.
If you think H1B leads to that outcome, you are either unaware of the issues surrounding it or intentionally misframing the problem.
You have no idea what these people go through, my heart breaks every time I see one with a family and the thousand yard stare they have because they’re clearly being exploited.
Partially. They are multinationals, and while there is a lot of money moving around in the USA, it's not bigger or worth more than the rest of the world combined. At the same time, they are often legally split up so the USA part is very small and (on paper) insignificant.
You seem to be delusional thinking that there is such a thing as an American. USA is the land of immigrants and as long as the best people come to US, it is the place to be. Ban the immigrants and the country loses its edge.
There is citizenship, it gives you more rights than an immigrant has. But even then you are just a child of an immigrant or N-th generation immigrant, where N is not that big.
>is actually causing the best jobs to shift more to immigrants and less to Americans
Ah, wonders of the free market. ;)
Do you honestly think Google/Apple/Microsoft/Facebook/etc hire foreigners because they have to pay them less? The legal costs of hiring and maintaining them easily adds up to 20-30k $ per year.
It’s not a free market when non-resident workers are indentured to a specific employer. Since they can’t easily job-shop, they are necessarily going to make a lower wage than if they had the ability to switch jobs. It isn’t the free market of the free movement of labor is artificially constrained by visa rules. Let’s not confuse this with the free market. It isn’t.
It's harder for them to switch jobs, and depending on where they are in the process of applying for a green card, they may have to restart if they do switch.
That kind of "loyalty" is easily worth 20k-30k for a lot of companies.
And take a massive pay cut? Even among rich countries and even for underpaid H-1B workers, tech salaries are generally much higher in the US, and most of them don't come from rich countries.
Clearly you can see there is a difference between what a company needs to do to keep an H-1B employee from leaving the country, and what they need to do to keep a permanent resident employee from switching jobs?
Sure, but I’m not sure I buy that companies hire H1-B’s because they are more loyal.
They spend far more money and time upfront getting the person the visa and in the end there is nothing preventing them from either going home or tranfering to a similar role at another company.
>They spend far more money and time upfront getting the person the visa and in the end there is nothing preventing them from either going home or tranfering to a similar role at another company.
So if there was a law that said they can't go home or change jobs, then you would accept that it might be worth it?
But if that were the case there's still nothing preventing them from dying right?
Hopefully from this example you can see that an employee who is much more likely to stay for x years, is more valuable despite the fact that they aren't guaranteed to stay for x years.
If you could pay $30k extra for an employee that is 50% more likely to stick around for 5 years, most companies would jump at that chance.
> The legal costs of hiring and maintaining them easily adds up to 20-30k $ per year.
Per year? No it doesn't. An H1B is valid for three years, renewable to six. Unless you're doing something strange there is no cost for the other years.
That’s not how it works. DOL sets a floor to salaries based on the US prevailing wage. If any H1-B holder is paying 1/10th of what a US worker costs, they are breaking the law.
Oh yeah I realize that - just going on the extended not just Cisco, and not just H1-B - there are companies right now in the US that are hiring outside firms or buying such firms employing 20-40 pakistani "employees" for software development. The money is basically just funnelling outside the US at incredible speeds. That software is then sold to US companies at 10 times the price.
Further, the recent actions making harder for "body shops" like Infosys are actually helping big tech companies win more visa lotteries. This means the recent action that was supposed to help American workers, is actually causing the best jobs to shift more to immigrants and less to Americans.
The whole visa and immigration system needs huge reform. I am not anti immigrant but the immigration system disproportionately hurts American software engineers and American tech. You don't see many visa holders working in sales and marketing, or teaching, or law, mostly just software engineering (at the high end) and then migrant farming and illegal immigrant factory workers (at the low end).