Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier?
As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top.
How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent?
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.
>Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier?
Actual barrier to a job: knowing how to deliver that type of service.
Artificial barrier: Something arbitrary synthesized by a party not involved in an A<->B transaction. Such as, having your papers in order so someone doesn't throw you in jail.
>All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top.
Specious argument. What about the person from New York/India moving to California?
Does allowing a company from California hire someone from New York 'drive down wages hurt everyone except the top 1%"? If not why does it suddenly 'drive down wages hurt everyone except the top 1%" when you change New York to India? This is my motivation of suspicion that H1 visas are a guise of xenophobia.
To me, H1 visas appear to be a sophomoric tantrum of the US transitioning to a global economy.
Addendum for your reflection:
Doesn't buying foreign manufactured goods 'drive down wages'?
Do you not buy foreign mfg goods?
Why not force all companies selling goods in the US to have those products exclusively made in the USA?
> Does allowing a company from California hire someone from New York 'drive down wages hurt everyone except the top 1%"?
Fundamental difference: I, as a U.S. citizen, have the legal right to move to California (or New York, or any of the other 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and so on) and work there. I do not have that legal right in relation to India. Until we have achieved "free trade" for the movement of people participating in an economy--like the European Union does internally--I do not have any objection to my country of citizenship trying to see that I am employed over non-citizens.
> To me, H1 visas appear to be a sophomoric tantrum of the US transitioning to a global economy.
Absolutely; I won't dispute that. On the other hand, why doesn't India have a program for U.S. nationals to easily move to India and take up employment? Or China? Or Brazil? It's easier to go to the United Kingdom for work than so-called "developing markets."
> Doesn't buying foreign manufactured goods 'drive down wages'?
It can and sometimes does.
> Do you not buy foreign mfg goods?
Where possible, I do not. Most of my clothes are made in the United States as is my television and my computer. My mobile phone was made in the U.S. (Motorola-manufactured in Fort Worth, Texas) but now that's not an option because Motorola shuttered that plant.
> Why not force all companies selling goods in the US to have those products exclusively made in the USA?
I realize this is a rhetorical question but I'll answer it straight anyway: I wouldn't object but that does rather bring about more centralized planning of the economy which is something to which a lot of people would object.
>Artificial barrier: Something arbitrary synthesized by a party not involved in an A<->B transaction.
Yes, other than:
* Being responsible for the welfare of A and B.
* Being responsible for mediating any disputes between A and B regarding their transaction.
* Being responsible for cracking down on potential fraudulent activity between A and B.
* Providing the medium whereby A and B can discharge their debts.
The government has nothing to do with the transactions. Absolutely nothing.
>Does allowing a company from California hire someone from New York 'drive down wages hurt everyone except the top 1%"? If not why does it suddenly 'drive down wages hurt everyone except the top 1%" when you change New York to India?
Because they're capitalizing on India's relative poverty.
> All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top
Can you elaborate a bit more on this? Doesn't the initial LCA application with the Dept. of Labor requires you to submit wage details that conclusively prove that the offered wages are as per market norms.
>Doesn't the initial LCA application with the Dept. of Labor requires you to submit wage details that conclusively prove that the offered wages are as per market norms.
There's nothing preventing you from applying for a lower LCA level. For example, say you have someone with 15 years of experience in system architecture and they have a Master's degree, and are bilingual, etc. Instead, you apply for a generic software engineer LCA, with a bachelor's degree with 3-5 years of experience. Now isntead of the LCA being approved for $150,000 it's down to $80,000. The immigrant doesn't complain because they're still getting a raise and have a chance to get a Green card. Meanwhile the company is getting to severely underpay (profit!) the worker.
There are all kinds of ways to game the LCA system. Apply for a location in Indiana, then bring the workers to Chicago. Apply for Arizona then bring them to LA. All the tech companies are abusing the system to their own advantage. USCIS is poorly funded and hardly checks on this, if ever.
@refurb >I'm not sure that would work. A part of the H1B approval process is to evaluate the skill level of the applicant, to make sure it lines up with the role the company is applying for.
If you've ever applied for an H-1B then you know that's not how it works. The 'process to evaluate the skill' is simply filling out a form online for their experience level, job title, and location. Give it a test here: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx
It's very easy to game their job title and location to lower the salary.
I'm not sure that would work. A part of the H1B approval process is to evaluate the skill level of the applicant, to make sure it lines up with the role the company is applying for.
Of course they are people, but I think the US government should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens (voters), not the international community. The US government has an obligation to protect its own citizens above all others.
While true, those protections at their highest disadvantage the economy as a whole. France and Spain have among the highest worker protection laws, too bad though there is barely anybody to protect in the offices of French search engine, French social network, French transportation sharing network or French backoffice software outfit - foreign entities with weaker protections gained a competitive advantage and took away everyone's lunch.
It's like protecting Exchange administrators the day after Gmail for companies was released - good idea in theory.
The best way to ensure that no immigrants take urrr jawbs is to have a shitty economy. It worked great in reducing Mexican immigration during the recent recession. Of course, it caused a lot of damage for many people in the US, too.
Perhaps the best answer for everyone is to worry about growing the pie, rather than keeping people out.
Since we are forced to live in a world divided into countries, it seems fair to view your own employment position defensively.
If I'm doing a job and I get paid X, then I get laid off, but before I can find a new job I have to train an immigrant from another country to work for 40% less, I think it's quite right to view this from an nationalist point of view.
"All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top."
It's funny how much this parallels file sharing and the music industry (and even open source) over the past 15 years: the sharing of free music, open source, and even the app store (how can you possibly make a living when you charge 99 cents for an app?) drove down the cost of both software and music to peanuts.
It's pretty clear artificial government controls haven't worked here (IE: copyright laws) and all industries involved have had to learn how to work around it to survive.
Globalization is here to stay and the thing we all love, technology, has made it easier and easier to replace us with overseas workers.
You can try to restrict the companies through law, but they will just end up moving out of the country (and more jobs will go along with them) to compete at a global level. There are plenty of countries that would love the tax dollars in exchange for lax hiring practices.
"How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less?"
it's not really 'gaming' anything. It's using technology to find the best applicant (be it experience, cost, or both). Business owner have learned that just getting cheap labor barely works, but it seems like companies like Facebook are getting not only cheaper labor, but employees that are educated and can compete with their American counterpart.
"Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent?"
Is adblock technology considered 'fraudulent' or 'abuse'? People using it are actively choosing to deprive a website of money, which will result in job loss.
Site owners have to learn how to still make money despite this new technology and so will you if you want to continue working and compete with overseas workers.
I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair.
The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative.
Obviously that is a vast, vast oversimplification, but there is a logic. Xenophobia is an "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" - putting your own economic interests ahead of others isn't necessarily the product of dislike or fear. And some would say it's entirely rational.
> So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative.
You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though.
Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.
At the same time, expanding immigration because Linus Torvalds exists is also a vast oversimplification. Even most anti-immigration people I've spoken to concede that there should be avenues for outstandingly talented people to emigrate if they wish.
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial?
Beneficial to whom? The world (or humanity) as a whole? Not really. US Citizens presumably want employers in the US to employ them over, well, people who aren't US Citizens. The US Gov't is elected by US Citizens. Hence the existence of legal barriers.
If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York?
Because states don't have the power to enact those restrictions. US Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.", and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell
As far as the Xenophobia bit? Yes and no. It's very easy to argue that discrimination based on place of birth is fundamentally wrong, and that open borders are an ideal worth striving for. Not sure if anyone has figured out the pragmatic policymaking around that -- i.e. designing social structures that are resilient to open borders.
>Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial?
To prevent a race to the bottom on 1st world wages and worker welfare and to arrest 3rd world brain drain.
Can you explain why India should be forced by dint of its poverty to invest in free education for its smartest citizens and let the benefits accrue to US elites rather than to the Indian people?
>If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York?
Because they are both US citizens and their welfare is the responsibility of the US government.
If the United States and India were to join at the hip and elect a single government collectively (do you want that?) then I see no reason why we shouldn't have free and open immigration between the two countries.
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Or is race baiting just a cynical ploy to funnel yet more money into the pockets of the 0.01% hyper-elite?
"Certain types of people", you mean non-citizens? The H1B lets non-US citizens into the country, ostensibly to fill a supposed skills gap. In reality, most H1B's issued are to replace high paid citizens with lower paid, low benefits immigrants. Whether you think this is good or bad, it isn't xenophobia or racism, it's a dollars and cents issue.
That's a pretty bold claim! That would imply widespread fraud. I don't think all companies do that, not even most of them. I think the bodyshops heavily skew the perception, though.
It's justified in avoiding free rider effects. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.
Thanks for replying with some well-thought-out arguments.
Why are free rider effects acceptable when someone moves from New York to California but not when it's India to California?
There are two, distinct forces at play here. Free-rider effects and cost subsidization.
The non-local worker would start paying taxes into that system? If a corporation is taxed on it's profits, wouldn't they start paying more into that social community.
If a company wants to cut labor costs and move, open the new facility and train the people in the new location. Do not bring them in on a visa meant for skilled labor, make someone train their replacement and then fire them.
Personally, I would like to see the H1-B system go away/become unavailable to large body shops and consulting firms. All they are doing is the scenario outlined above.
Some companies are good, some, like IBM which are attempting to cater to the daily whims of Wall Street, not so much.
I'm not sure I would consider laws that favor a country's citizens over foreign nationals "xenophobia". They CAN be, of course, but they can also be solid policy that most or all nations do.
What they are trying to protect is US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting lesser wages) due to a sudden availability of cheaper labor. So, the supply is restricted. It's not exactly xenophobia, it is market control.
I bet a lot of opposition would disappear overnight if foreign workers could only be hired at a very high high salary level. Of course, go too high and you'll get complaints from US citizens that are not yet at that level. But I guess that would be a minority.
Level the playing field (at least in wages), and there's much less of an excuse to restrict immigration. After all, if an immigrant with no networking, who doesn't have English as his native language and a different culture, and has to jump through a lot of hoops just to be able to legally move and work in the country (a process that can take months), if he can just walk in and steal your job, then there was something wrong about your job security in the first place.
The problem is how to define what a [high|fair] wage would be at a given location and industry.
Would you be in favor of increasing the general US immigration cap by 65000 and abolishing H1B completely? Because I would. If you are not in favor of that then perhaps there is a motive to your concern other than racial harmony.
It's generally better for your whole country if your citizens are employed doing high wage, productive labor rather than having their jobs poached by foreigners who get paid very little send much of their wealth back to their home country. This in practice benefits a very small minority of very wealthy people and doesn't do much for your overall country. It is also better on a state level as well, to (for example) keep Apple in California rather than have them and their jobs leave for Texas, as well as the highly educated citizens you have leaving California for jobs in Texas.
Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier?
As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top.
How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent?
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.