Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pm90 3421 days ago
> You know what else I have seen, lots and lots of very competent, driven, and smart American students. Also interviewed them. The idea that there are none and we have to hire from overseas using a visa process is ridiculous.

It isn't that there are none, the problem is that there aren't enough. And instead of hypothesizing, just look at how oversubscribed the H1B visa is and how many people come in via other work visas (e.g. L1).

> You are right there. I agree with that part in general. But if it is not cheap and is a decent salary, there should be no problem filling it with American laborers. Computer Science degrees and education has become more popular. I don't see H1B workforce as being immensely and uniquely qualified such that it would be impossible to find anyone in a country of 300M+ people with top universities in the world. If there are such cases, I posit $130k is a low end start for their salaries.

Wrong. I can't believe how common this idea that "free market will fix everything!" is on HN. It is making more US students consider CS/Programming as a career, but even in a nation of 300M+ people, they aren't graduating in large enough numbers. (I can go on about the specific reasons but lets deal with the relevant facts instead of throwing numbers around. One could argue why a country with 16000M+ people, India, won not a single gold medal at the last olympics). Simply changing lowest salary to $130k wont magically fix it, just like $60k presently is not fixing it.

> To be specific I was replying to the critique that Americans don't have a standing when talking being a "nation" and using that as an argument. 300 years is certainly enough reasons to form a national identity. I think it is silly claiming "You don't have a right to change your H1B visa rules because you are not a nation". Even as an immigrant, that feels a bit over-board.

Thanks for clarifying that. I agree, the US is a nation in the canonical sense. I think the OP was pointing out more to the critical contribution of immigration to American growth and prosperity.

> H1B visas are about filling labor shortages with exceptional talent, that is their goal. Over the years that seems they have been perverted from anything from "Let's help international students who graduate to immigrate" to "I need indentured servants to work for me for X number of years".

This is another untruth, where the world "specialty" is misused. Lets go to the definition[0]:

"Generally speaking, a job is a specialty occupation if the occupation normally requires a bachelors degree in a related field of study. Jobs in fields such as engineering, math, and business, as well as many technology fields, often qualify as a specialty occupation."

So basically, most engineering jobs are "specialty" jobs and using H1B is perfectly legal and right way to do them.

I absolutely agree that there is a problem with bodyshops abusing the system. But the solutions offered so far DO NOT, WILL NOT solve those problems.

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupati...

1 comments

> the problem is that there aren't enough

By what measure?

> just look at how oversubscribed the H1B visa is

What is your interpretation of this? Who would turn down the chance of cheap labor even without a shortage?

> I can't believe how common this idea that "free market will fix everything!" is on HN

This is an exaggerated characterisation; but to some degree it is necessary to rely on market principles, given how complex the economy is.

> even in a nation of 300M+ people, they aren't graduating in large enough numbers.

Demand is high. Why is the population count relevant? People are choosing other career paths, which means there isn't enough incentive to choose IT.

> One could argue why a country with 16000M+ people, India, won not a single gold medal at the last olympics

You could, and why not? Are you implying India is incapable of producing gold-medal winning athletes?

> Simply changing lowest salary to $130k wont magically fix it

Not overnight, might it might in the long run. Why wouldn't it?

> But the solutions offered so far DO NOT, WILL NOT solve those problems

You mean the bodyshop abuse? Won't a minimum wage requirement fix it?

> What is your interpretation of this? Who would turn down the chance of cheap labor even without a shortage?

The labor is not cheap. I have already explained this.

> Demand is high. Why is the population count relevant? People are choosing other career paths, which means there isn't enough incentive to choose IT.

It isn't. I bring it up because the parent brought it up. I think we are in agreement here.

> You could, and why not? Are you implying India is incapable of producing gold-medal winning athletes?

Most certainly not.

> Not overnight, might it might in the long run. Why wouldn't it?

I have already explained this. Please don't ask the same question for me to give the same answer. The only reason I am replying is because you seem to be genuinely interested in an open-minded discussion about this issue.

> You mean the bodyshop abuse? Won't a minimum wage requirement fix it?

No, I don't mean the bodyshop abuse. The problem: not enough Americans to fill vacancies in tech sector. That is the problem that this solution won't fix.

> The labor is not cheap. I have already explained this.

Is this:

>> 60k is NOT CHEAP LABOR in most parts of the country!

You "explanation"? Because you didn't really respond to:

>> But if it is not cheap and is a decent salary, there should be no problem filling it with American laborers.

>> If there are such cases, I posit $130k is a low end start for their salaries.

Or to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13553710

> I have already explained this.

You haven't replied to all responses to those explanations (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13552944 ), and I haven't accepted some of your arguments yet. Can you point out which posts of your own you are referring to?

> The only reason I am replying is..

If you are going to take this arrogant tone, then take your own posts less authoritatively. It's not "open-minded" to lace your responses with such haughty barbs.