> "H1B Visas exist for one reason, and one reason only" ; "it's simple reality" ; "Without a doubt" ; "It happens all-the-fucking-time" ; "There's absolutely no talent shortage in the Bay Area"
Presenting something as a fact doesn't make it one.
You're basically saying that American tech companies should only hire Americans. That the facebook, Google, Mozilla, ... shouldn't hire smart people from other countries.
As someone who doesn't live in the US but would like to work in this industry, I will probably have to relocate to the US (either in the Bay Area or New York). Do you mean that offers I've got in the past were because I'm "cheap labor"? (as in "Let's fly you from the other side of the world, pay for the crazy high VISA fees, pay for relocation, ... and then pay you the same as those that already live in the Bay Area")
Your remarks about "divisive ethic-neuveau-ghettos" with "communities insulating themselves rather than assimilating" just makes it worst. I'm not even going to guess who the "We" in your message refers to.
>You're basically saying that American tech companies should only hire Americans. That the facebook, Google, Mozilla, ... shouldn't hire smart people from other countries.
No, the system just needs to be reformed. And I've seen the right reform proposal often enough to be circulating it myself:
* The government can give out N visas in an auction. Firms bid via legally-binding salary offers. The N highest salaries bid get the visas, and the government takes a small additional payroll tax as the only fee.
* The visas adhere to the workers, not the companies.
That will greatly improve the current system for the workers while enabling everyone genuinely in need of high-skilled labor to get it.
Of course, it's worth noting that some degree of so-called "nativism" is just part of the social contract. It's the price we pay for having a society that enforces cooperative coordination among citizens instead of letting everything be run by uncoordinated, law-of-the-jungle free-for-alls.
> * The government can give out N visas in an auction. Firms bid via legally-binding salary offers. The N highest salaries bid get the visas, and the government takes a small additional payroll tax as the only fee.
This would be doomed to fail. Professional services firms can outbid basically everyone because they can turn around and bill that person out at 5x their salary.
The visas will never adhere to the workers for one simple reason: the visa process exists to benefit the companies, not the workers. The workers are not US citizens and have no leverage with the US government. The visa programs only exist because the US-based companies want them - and those companies DO have leverage with the US government.
> This would be doomed to fail. Professional services firms can outbid basically everyone because they can turn around and bill that person out at 5x their salary.
So what? Shouldn't the companies that can create the most value from the employee be the ones that get to hire them?
I wouldn't say that professional services firms really create the most value - far from it actually. They're just able to pay more because there's relatively little risk involved for them.
Well said! You'll never outbid a body shop. They'll essentially spend whatever it takes to get the workers here and bill them out for 3x whatever they paid. If you as the product company don't like it tough luck. This is because the people is the product for these companies, product companies have other things to concentrate on.
If they're charging 3x whatever they paid, that pushes up prices for the companies hiring the body shops, which incentivizes finding cheaper competitors to body shops in the labor market -- like hiring domestic workers, for example. The pricing mechanisms of the market will optimize out a balance.
Just a random, unhelpful ping into this conversation to point out that the economics of billing out a programmer for "3x" (I assume you mean "3x the fully-loaded cost of the programmer as an FTE for the consultancy, broken out by hour") is a lot more complicated than this thread makes it sound.
Companies aren't simply using those "3x" contractors as a shortcut to avoid finding and hiring full-timers. A big chunk of that "x" is business value created by the consultancy and sold to the client; the biggest chunk of that involves risk management.
Sure, great. Honestly, I don't mind what companies want to do with contractors and contracting. I've been a contractor for a short time. If a big chunk of the 3x is business value created, great, go ahead.
My only actual point here is that rather than trying to tailor a visa just for the special needs of Silicon Valley start-ups, we should be tailoring high-skilled work-visa programs for letting the market decide what constitutes high-value work, viz: work that people will pay a lot for.
If under the proposed system (h1bs granted in descending sort order of salary), product firms were losing out to professional services firms, then the product firms are free to pay their employees more. If they don't create enough value to justify paying more, well, then the system works as designed.
>This would be doomed to fail. Professional services firms can outbid basically everyone because they can turn around and bill that person out at 5x their salary.
So what? The purpose of skilled-worker immigration in public policy is to maximize productivity, not to cater to the industry to which people on Hacker News happen to belong.
I wouldn't say that professional services firms maximize productivity; they just have good relationships and are more effective at selling their services than an individual developer can ever be.
How do you reconcile 'legally binding salary offers' to adhering the visa to the worker? How long is the company obliged to pay the visa bid rate? What if the company becomes financially incapable of paying the visa bid rate? (yes, demonstrating financial solvency of the employer is part of the visa sponsorship process, but circumstances change). If the worker moves to another company, is that company required to pay the bid rate? I can imagine a 'simple' scheme like that leading to all kinds of shell-game shenanigans where high bids are used to win the visas to bring workers in, then through sleight of hand the worker is transferred to a different job at a lower wage...
>Of course, it's worth noting that some degree of so-called "nativism" is just part of the social contract. It's the price we pay for having a society that enforces cooperative coordination among citizens instead of letting everything be run by uncoordinated, law-of-the-jungle free-for-alls.
You realize that skilled immigrants are going to be the most likely to assimilate into American culture. They will not form ghettos or enclaves(unless there is of course white flight).
Well yes, of course. This is why the proposal is designed to make absolutely sure we bring in skilled, high-value immigrants. It's a filter, not a fence.
Come to Toronto. Amazon is here, and growing. Lots of other start ups and mid-sized companies. Canada is way less insane about visa hoops to jump through. We're pretty friendly, and the crime rate is low (our new Mayor doesn't do crack or hang out with gangsters).
Most importantly, we're a country and city that likes immigration of smart people who want to earn high salaries, and pay our slightly-higher-than-America taxes.
Well, I have actually been considering a move, not just because of Immigration, but because of all of Canada's natural beauty. I also kinda like snow and cold weather and maple syrup.
Here is one important question though: is it a city that you would recommend for young people (in their twenties)? Or is it nicer once you have a family and are looking to settle down etc.? And besides Amazon, is there any demand for tech workers over there?
Toronto is the biggest city in Canada and the industrial center, lots of different sectors and jobs, thriving start-up scene, and all the things other major cities would offer.
Biggest problem you'll face is that we mix-use metric and imperial units, i.e. pounds for weight, feet for height, celsius for temperature, meter for distance.
In Canada currently. The salaries just suck compared to states. Yes the visa hoops are less but living expenses in cities like Vancouver will suck everything out of your pocket.
Software developer salaries are usually about 30% higher in the Bay area than they are in Vancouver.
Renting an apartment will cost you at least twice as much in San Francisco though - so most people are still financially better off with the smaller salary in Vancouver. There are non-financial reasons to move to the Bay Area (more interesting work being the big one), but don't expect your salary to go farther
You're entire post is based on a strawman argument. OP didn't say that companies shouldn't hire non-American talent. He said companies should hire non-American talent through traditional immigration proceedings, and that the H1B program lends itself to an exploitative employer-laborer relationship, that ultimately serves to unfairly lower industry pay rates.
So... An H1-B. Because that is essentially your only choice for temporary residency while waiting the many years it takes for an EB-3 (and months/years for 1/2) to go through. Unless the applicant is from Canada, where you can choose to go the TN route but have to be careful because EB is intent to immigrate, or an L-1 if they're an international transfer.
The H1-B is a decent visa for the purpose its intended to serve, as a way to get immigrants here who would otherwise have to wait years to start working while a permanent residency application goes through. It has its shortcomings, but it's a whole lot better than other routes you could go through.
Traditional immigration proceedings? You mean the system where if you're from China or India, you have to wait 3-5X as long for a green card as people from western europe?
Yeah, that system sounds great. Dunno why people in software engineering of all industries would have a problem with that system.
So why not just fix that system. Its simple to do -- for instance, keep in-total quotas but eliminate per-country quotas and the misfeature you point to is eliminated instantly.
Per country quotas are a mechanism which forces per-origin-country supply to be misaligned with per-origin-country demand.
Your remarks about "divisive ethic-neuveau-ghettos" with "communities insulating themselves rather than assimilating" just makes it worst.
Part of the "social contract" when you immigrate to the US is to at least make an effort to join your new country. We aren't the Borg, but we would like to see you learn at least a little English, accept your new country, and generally participate.
You are already most of the way there- you speak English. Your parent is reacting to communities of people who immigrate to the US, learn not one word of English, turn inwards and attempt to create Little Elbonia, including attempting to completely reshape government in Elbonia's image.
How many tech companies apply for H1-B visas for developers who are unable to speak any English at all?
Your post has such an overwhelming air of nationalistic, racist sentiment. "These foreigners come over here, they don't even speak english, and they take all our jobs".
The reality is that most of the foreign developers I've met speak english and communicate at least as well as other developers we've hired here, and oftentimes speak even better english.
Remember, not all H1-B visa holders are dirt-farming Indians who read Ruby on Rails for Dummies in their native language and got tired of farming themselves out on glance for $10/hr. A lot of them are from well-educated western countries - the Ireland, Britain, Canada, Mexico, Germany, etc.
You're generalizing all immigrants into this offensively racist image you've got in your head, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps there are people like that where you live, but by and large the H1-B visa holders are well-educated, skilled, and speak English as well as people who have been American citizens for decades.
Good lord, I'm not generalizing anything. I was explaining further the specific phenomenon (which does occur sometimes) that manticore_alpha was talking about. I didn't apply this phenomenon to anyone, nor make any statements about policy nor how it ought to impact policy... Or does the simple description of a phenomenon which sometimes happens, now mean I'm a jingoistic, nationalistic, racist dirtbag? I am in complete agreement that this phenomenon is very unlikely to happen with H1B workers, and I am completely familiar with the fact that many immigrants are well-educated, speak excellent English, and fully integrate into American society.
The reason is because it's typically ignorant xenophobic racists who complain the loudest about x or y group not assimilating.
Now I don't think this is you, but that's just the way the argument smells.
Let's step back a minute: what is the big deal with people attempting to preserve their culture when they come to the US? Isn't it a free country? And materially I don't see how it harms anything because the American culture, derided thought it may be by some, is actually extremely alluring and powerful, so even if the parents are nostalgic for the old country the kids are going to gravitate towards assimilation. Where is the harm?
This is a really great example of how powerful the dog whistle techniques used by racists can actually be.
Your instincts picked up on something from silverstorm's comment, but a lack of concrete evidence made it very difficult to say out loud what you were actually thinking. You were forced to go from:
this offensively racist image you've got in your head
All the way back to:
Now I don't think this is you, but that's just the way the argument smells.
I went into silverstorm's use of dog whistle techniques a little deeper in my comment above, but the evolution of your exchange with him really demonstrates how effective it can be as a tool for perpetuating racist views with immunity from criticism. It is a strategy based on controlling the conversation and playing off of several deeply ingrained societal tendencies, and it works.
Saying "You" when not addressing anyone in particular is a classic dog whistle technique. Everyone in the audience knows exactly who you're talking about, and plausible deniability is preserved for future accusations of racism/bigotry.
Of course, silverstorm did not actually explain anything at all. All he did was repeat a few standard dog whistle arguments used by racists with a couple of geek culture references thrown in to pander to the audience.
Let's take a look.
1. Appeal to imaginary "social contract" -- an attempt to establish a criteria for who should be accepted into society based on some vague, unspecific standard. Used in various forms by dominant demographic to argue against immigration.
2. "Learn to speak English" -- Good to see this is still being used. Incredibly high reliability as an indicator of racism, almost to the point where I expect it to soon fall out of favor among racists. [0]
3. Warnings of radical change to society ("attempt to create Little Elbonia", "completely reshape government") -- A common, highly effective technique based on natural human fear of the unknown and preference to status quo.
And of course, silverstorm's response to being challenged was equally standard -- repeated reference to "phenomenon" to avoid potential challenges to assertions, it's only a few bad apples ("a phenomenon which sometimes happens", "many immigrants are well-educated"), preemptive dismissal of direct accusation as self-evidently absurd ("I'm a jingoistic, nationalistic, racist dirtbag?").
If I'm arguing, what am I arguing for? Because it isn't less immigration. If I could have my way, we'd abolish H1B's and Visas and instead simply grant citizenship to basically anyone who wanted it (excepting, I don't know, internationally wanted criminals?).
Well, maybe there is still a place for visas if the person only wants to work in the US for a while and their birth country does not allow dual citizenship. But that's beside the point.
As for integrating, even people who completely refuse to integrate can be here- that's fine. Personally, I just (selfishly) want them to integrate, so I can meet them and talk with them. It's no different from the way that I want to be friends with my neighbors. I'm not pissed if they don't want to be friendly- just sad.
I was just trying to acknowledge that complete and total refusal to integrate does happen (some of my friends growing up had parents like that). That doesn't inform my opinions on policy- they are still welcome to be here.
In my previous post I just explained I am 100% for immigration. All immigration. I welcome any and all peoples. Is that still too vague for you? Too much dog whistle? Too much covert racism? How can I be sufficiently clear?
I brought up H1B's because they were part of the original conversation, before you joined.
you are accusing someone else of racism but at the same you make this comment "not all H1-B visa holders are dirt-farming Indians who read Ruby on Rails for Dummies in their native language and got tired of farming themselves out on glance for $10/hr. A lot of them are from well-educated western countries" . So only western countries engineers are well educated but Indian developers are dirt-farmers ?
That doesn't actually have to mean that all Indian developers are dirt-farmers, which is hyperbole itself, it's just playing to a stereotype to make his point which was the opposite. I'm not sure you should really cling on to the racism card.
From the same vien I'm from the UK but have been approached a couple of times by US companies wanting me to relocate. Typically they tell me money is of no concern, they just deperatly need good people. I'm not convinced they'll save money or get better results by shipping me over from London but I suspect this has more to do with ignorance of the recruiters than malice or conspiracy.
The first three generations of my family in America spoke German. My home town was basically a group of people from a German town who up and moved to start a new town in the Midwest and went on living there as if nothing changed. Hundreds of Midwest towns and cities started the exact same way.
Neither is more 'right' than the other, only that it's pointless to criticize people who are long-dead. It's important for people to realize that European immigrants did (and do) largely the same thing as other immigrants that people often criticize for not learning English, but we can't change the past.
I don't believe these feelings are necessarily entirely rooted in racism, as I've heard plenty of people in Chicago complain about Polish immigrants unwillingness to speak English. I think it's more likely the feelings are a mix of racism, classism and additionally a sense of pride in American culture.
This is really a contract that some Americans would like to impose on other Americans.
The U.S. is a free country; that's the social contract. People are free to live where they want, associate with whom they want, and speak whatever language they want. Other people are free to accomodate them to the degree they wish, or not.
But the idea that you're not "really" American unless you fit some predefined set of characteristics is just a nasty attempt to impose one set of values on everyone.
You are right. In America we deplore things like bribery, oppression of women, caste systems, rule of law, human trafficking, honor killings, etc. We will impose that social contract on anyone who migrates here. Even if you are Sir Elton John, you are just Elton John here. If you bring slave servants to the US and enslave them here, as has happened, you'll be thrown in prison. It's not about language.
> Part of the "social contract" when you immigrate to the US is to at least make an effort to join your new country
Huh? What social contract are you talking about? Don't use quotes as a goto escape. If there was actually a social contract, then in the valley we'd all be speaking Chumash, Mojave or something like that.
> "communities of people who immigrate to the US, learn not one word of English, turn inwards and attempt to create Little Elbonia"
TBH, it's also not so uncommon for Americans in Europe to make no effort to learn the local language, and to seek mostly the company of other Americans.
Exactly. We've already seen Islamists try to enforce sharia in England; if we had wanted a theocracy, we would have let the Christofascists take over long ago. And before anyone goes claiming oppression of differing cultures, the secular culture that is America is precisely the root cause of why many people want to to move there. Others in this thread have already mentioned things like misogyny, homophobia, etc, that while it's not a solved problem in America, isn't nearly as bad as it is in some other countries.
From where I sit (Europe) America does not look like having a secular culture at all. Sure, you have the separation of church and state enshrined in your constitution, but in practice the country seems way too religious.
The commentator was not discussing immigration wholly; they are discussing H1B. There are some good reasons to suspect why H1B is an unfair tool. For example, H1B immigrants cannot easily switch employers, and do so with some appreciably elevated risk or cost. Or the fact that H1B wages are enforced by law, rather than competition, and that it's very difficult to bring legal action. If H1B immigrants could switch around without consequence to their immigration or employment prospects, then this wouldn't happen, but I suspect that companies wouldn't support something like that.
I think that employers already have the edge on workers in general because they have more information, and because many Americans feel that specific talk of income is invasive or rude, and thus American workers don't really cooperate with each other for strategy; or at least it seems tech workers don't.
The specific economic impairments placed upon H1B immigrants, even if written by sincere and well-meaning hearts, unfortunately means that these people are ripe for exploitation without much serious legitimate recourse. I think that assets and opportunities which may be profitably and predictably exploited (and well known in our case), will probably be exploited up to the border where it's no longer profitable to exploit.
Presenting something as a fact doesn't make it one.
You're basically saying that American tech companies should only hire Americans. That the facebook, Google, Mozilla, ... shouldn't hire smart people from other countries.
As someone who doesn't live in the US but would like to work in this industry, I will probably have to relocate to the US (either in the Bay Area or New York). Do you mean that offers I've got in the past were because I'm "cheap labor"? (as in "Let's fly you from the other side of the world, pay for the crazy high VISA fees, pay for relocation, ... and then pay you the same as those that already live in the Bay Area")
Your remarks about "divisive ethic-neuveau-ghettos" with "communities insulating themselves rather than assimilating" just makes it worst. I'm not even going to guess who the "We" in your message refers to.