Gaming the H-1B system for good
blog.triplebyte.com
blog.triplebyte.com
This does solve the hiring manager's problem, but will raise red flags with the outsourced employee's personal risk profile.
There is another rush for a lawyer if the startup you were hired into gets restructured (acquired/merged).
Honestly TripleByte can offer a small "outplacement" insurance package to the employee being hired (as a revenue stream) - which works out nearly the same as having a "talent agent" retainer in the business, except one who knows how to navigate the legal wrangles when you need a new gig.
I'm sure there are few people on HN who want to keep immigrants out of the USA, but that's bad policy in the long run. I hope this debate around H1B will facilitate a better visa regime.
Switzerland, a country with 28% of foreign population, has a system where you can quit your job and claim unemployement benefits for at least 6 months before your work permit actually expires.
Plus, what gives any people- including the government- the right to interfere with Freedom of Association.
Like Gay Marriage, the right to hire whome you want is an exercise of this basic right.
Alas, there wasn't an amendment to the Bill of Rights (though there doesn't need to be, read the preamble) to support freedom of association, and so this right has been eroded over time.
Immigration restrictions are government interfering with the economy, and in a bad way.
All immigrants benefit a country (unless you have a rickety socialist country in which case some of them may tax the welfare system-- but if its not rickety the ones who come to work will pay for the ones who don't.)
The same crowd that supports unlimited immigration, ironically oppose free trade. If it's ok to let in $60,000 engineers because there is a shortage of professionals willing to work for $60,000, why is it not ok to let in tarrif-free cars because people don't want to spend $20k on a Chevy?
There is no shortage of software devs. There is a shortage of software devs willing to work for $60k. The H1 system ought to be for exceptional cases such as a data scientist proficient in R, Haskel and Ruby which experience on mobile API design. It shouldn't be for effectively entry or mid level work. Many of the Infosys and Tata engineers with whom I have worked have been reasonably competent, but far from spectacular and some have been downright dangerously incompetent. Not a single one has been a field-leading expert.
Someone mentioned about what if plumbers were the primary recipient of H1s.. That would be interesting because it would expose the scam that is the enterprise-level H1 system.
It's about cheap labor (generally) and not about some imagined shortage of people. Honestly, outsourcing firms ought to be excluded from H1 eligibility; only primary employers should be allowed to apply. The program should also have more oversight. For example, you claim you can't find an engineer that can work in C and interact with SOAP APIs. Before your H1 request is allowed to proceed, the government (or quasi-government) should then be allowed to send you US resident prospects that meet your requirements. If there are none, then you get the H1 application processed. Essentially affirmative action for US citizens and resident. If you are unwilling to hire the employee, you would need to justify why. Salary discussions would be forbidden until after you make a hiring decision. If you say yes but the salary is too high, then there would be kind of an arbitration system.
My point is that H1 is about lower cost most of the time and has little to do with an actual shortage.
I am currently on a student visa in the U.S. and was considering trying the H-1B route. However, since it is so tiresome and it literally can make you waste years of your life, I was thinking to not even bother. When I was doing research, most people say that the US is the best place to be at as a SE. This makes it sound like if you are doomed everywhere else. I am happy to see that you seem to be a counterexample to this. If you don't mind me asking, how "bad" is it really to be in Europe instead of US as a SE? Which country do you live in? People say pay is so much lower in Europe, but does it really affect you that much?
Thanks!
In general, the entrepreneurial scene is much smaller, but if you want to concentrate on SE Europe is fine.
I think you are a bit off on both :)
Salary:
As a Software Engineer, chances are you can a bit more (especially including bonus + RSU). If you're "senior" you can earn quite a bit more.
Also: There are tons of other small perks that add up (phone/internet reimbursement, free food, public transport pass, free electric car charging, ...)
Rent:
You can currently get a 2 BR, 2 BR in Mountain View for about $3500 (managed newish building 2 minutes from Castro)
(Source: moved to Valley from Europe via Boston)
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/06/02/san-franciscos-...
$2500-$3000/month will get you a nice 1-bedroom in some of the more desirable neighborhoods.
I should know, I just spent a month finding one.
So in summary, H1B applicant pool can vary from year to year so don't cross it off your list yet
Not sure why you would consider those years "wasted". You're working, gaining experience and making money. Since the job market is great, an H-1B isn't really something that would keep you back from negotiating your salary or anything else.
Getting the green card is a bit different, but there have been some reforms over the last few years.
I'd personally recommend it (having been on L-1B and H-1B).
If you're looking for options out of USA, I would seriously recommend Canada. It has a culture similar to the US, but better visa regime and healthcare.
I thought EU was way worse on Indians[regarding IT jobs]
Did you reply to the right post?
This benefits helpful employers. Seems right.
There's no reason at all to think that anything would change in terms of the H1B Vs. employer relationship if that legislation would pass. We'd just have different nationalities in the same situation we do now.
The best bill so far that Congress has introduced in the last ten years was S. 744 (113th Congress), which passed the Senate, but was blocked by then House Speaker Boehner (despite majority support in the House) under pressure from some racist and xenophobic far-right republicans: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744
Fortunately a lot of H1Bs wind up getting change of status another way (e.g. getting married). But for those that don't, it must feel like they're in bonded labor to that employer.
They explicitly sell the advantage to hiring people on visa as being the control you have over them during the green card process.
Similarly, once you start the Green Card process with an employer, you aren't likely to go through with an H1-B transfer. It's a broken system...
However, unlike pre-civil rights citizenship quotas, the green card quota seems ok to everyone. This a moral discrepancy, IMO. Unfortunately, it won't be addressed in the near future, because though the population affected may be in the hundreds of thousands, they are not important to any political players. Even on a generally enlightened forum like HN, you routinely encounter hateful comments about H1B workers. I think H1Bs deserve some level of representation in such matters simply because these workers pay the exact same taxes as all Americans. The situation for many people is utterly hopeless and it should be of humanitarian concern, here is a moving account from Seattle: http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/while-their-...
I think the notion that after working (and paying taxes) in the US for 6 years, a person has to wait another 10 years to reap the benefits of permanent residency simply because they were born in a particular country is morally indefensible.
You can think of the same for EB3, and family petitions too. This would be more equitable than 7% quotas.
Edit: I did back of the envelope calculations based on this data: http://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms... For the last year, there are about 120k applications approved, while 140k is the limit. At the end of the year, the remaining 20k can be split up among people in the queue. This can be made even fairer if you aggregate it over two years, and then tie the number of immigrants to the inflation rate. I estimate it would shave off at least 3-5 years from the current wait times for EB petitions. It can even be tied to the percentage of the country's population that got an H1B. There are some more trends here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42048.pdf
If it were up to me I would eliminate the DV lottery (50k visas) and reassign those numbers to EB as well as eliminating the per country caps. F-2B (26k) and F-4 (65k) are also ripe for elimination IMO. I'd probably also move parents of USC to F-1 from IR.
Interestingly enough EB1 is current for all countries and is the most abused Employment based visa category. HR /Manager types with an MBA and experience from India eligible to apply for EB1(C) and they get visas in 3 months.
Assuming no complications, the full process from LCA to a status change could take as little as a year (but 18-24 months would be a more realistic estimate).
http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bull...
I came here on a student visa at 17, went on get a CS Masters and now live in SF on a H1B almost 10 years later. America is pretty much the only country I know how to navigate as an adult. The fact that it is mathematically impossible for me to get a GC before 2025 as an Indian used to upset me quite a bit. H1B simply doesn't allow one to live with dignity or take chances. But over this year, I've made my peace with this. I'll continue to work here while I still love my job but eventually go back. Theres no way in hell I'll keep working the same job years on in hopes of a gc.
Also, I don't see how you can start something on your own (excluding freelancing) if you're taking considerable time off; maybe I'm wrong. You cannot just take time off when you feel like it, a competitor is most certainly going to eat your lunch.
To me, this is a lame argument that "if I get my gc I can start something on my own". Really? Totally anecdotal and bay area specific, but the ratio of recent gc holders starting a new venture (note: new venture, not an existing venture) to number of people getting their gc is tending to 0 (I'm exaggerating but it's a pretty low number). Chances are, this person has spent a lot of time in an established company waiting for his/her gc, bought a house (therefore enslaved by a mortgage), possibly have had kids, and lost most of the technical and any entrepreneurial skills required to compete in a cut throat environment. I do not see such a person taking a risk, even after getting a gc. Will expediting handing gc to applicants change this ratio? Who knows? It's a moot point.
Again, this is totally anecdotal, but I see a considerable difference between me (I work in a startup) vs a lot of my friends who don't. I'm not saying I'm superior than them; but I see that they just don't realize what's required to start/run a company. It's no piece of cake.
Given that I pay taxes and am subject to immigration laws a lot longer than a person born anywhere else, I don't see why I can't complain about a law that reflects nativist compromises of the Civil Rights act.
And well by time off, I didn't mean a sabbatical, just the ability to quit my job and not have to leave the country as a result.
So? The United States or [Insert country] is under no obligation whatsoever to afford special treatment since a foreigner pays the same taxes like the rest. I'm an Indian citizen and I did a quick search for work visas in India. A foreigner pays the same taxes as an Indian citizen in India[0] and isn't given special privileges when it comes to immigration laws.
> I don't see why I can't complain about a law that reflects nativist compromises of the Civil Rights act.
Source? How does the gc allocation compromise the Civil rights act?
The gc allocation is 7% per country[1]. If you fall in a country (like me India) where the number of applicants outstrip the 7% quota per year, you're out of luck. How is that compromising the Civil rights act?
Here's my take: I can keep complaining and waste my time and brain cycles over this. I don't have any voting power on this issue; all I have is a modest amount of talent and more importantly the drive and the persistence which I would like to use to further my career and make smart decisions. Personally for me, the immigration laws aren't as debilitating as people make them out to be.
[0] http://www.expatarrivals.com/india/taxes-in-india [1] http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit
Complaining (including to those responsible for the policy) is obviously an option, one protected by the First Amendment. (Which applies to "the people", not merely citizens.)
Whether it is a productive course of action is, of course, potentially a very different story.
Just food for thought though not suggesting any course of action. We married for love and found out about about this little pleasant twist later.
One is denying the right of people born in the U.S. with parents that are citizens.
The other, is limiting the number of people not born in the U.S. and without parents that are citizens. In other words, its a choice to come here.
Not saying it is morally right or wrong, but you may consider distinguishing between the two.
What? you decided your country of birth?
Umm, no. You are mistaken. Racial criteria also applied to naturalized citizenship aspirants. Today, once you have a green card, irrespective of where you were born, it takes you 5 or so years to get your citizenship. So, person of white ethnicity born in Switzerland and a non-white person born in India would have the same wait and the same criteria for citizenship. This was not possible before the INA act of 1965 (and other civil rights acts).
When phrased that way, sure it feels that way.
But it's not because you are born in a specific country, it's because your country of origin has a lot of people who are attempting to immigrate to the US, and each country is capped.
Imagine if they lifted that policy, then countries like Mexico, India, China would lock out pretty much any other country from immigrating to the US. Add in the Amnesty program for undocumented workers, and you could imagine that nearest neighbors to the US would lock everyone else out.
So instead of penalizing Indians (in this case), you've now penalized everyone else.
What system, given a fixed number of applicants, would not apply some sort of penalty by proxy?
Contrast that to pre-1960's where laws SPECIFICALLY targeted blacks american citizens.
The US has no moral requirement to treat non-us citizens 100% the same as it does it's citizens. Yes they have perhaps lived in the US for 6 years, and paid US Taxes. They have also enjoyed a certain level of comfort afforded them, that they presumably would not have had in their native country.
You are assuming that they will lock-out without supporting with real data. Already 30% of H1Bs are taken by Indians, and a good percentage of family based immigration is from Mexico.
India and China make up around 35% of the world's population. A uniformly drawn sample of immigrants from across the world would consist of 35% Indians and Chinese. Further, Mexico is America's neighbor, and the two countries share a lot of history.
The number of Indians has grown from 1.7 million in 2000 to 2.8 million in 2010 in spite of the caps. The numbers are not magically going to explode, most of the people who're in the green card queue will likely duke it out and become citizens in due time. Their children will likely stay in the US too. So, I don't see how the caps are limiting or democratizing the process. You don't have caps at H1B, you don't have caps for citizenship. Only the in-between stage of permanent residency, caps exist. That already makes it an ineffective tool in un-biasing the skew.
Presumably because if you are an guest worker in the US, and of Indian citizenship, you would have a longer wait time, than if you were say from Bhutan. I classify this as a penalization by proxy.
I pointed out that if you lifted the per-country cap, you haven't solved this penalization by proxy. Even with caps based on world population, you still have a penalty applied.
If this is defensible, then racial quotas in schools (e.g., capping proportion of Jews) are also defensible by using the same logic as "you're now penalizing everyone else."
I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China.
Sorry, can't really see how the moral argument works.
However, you've then penalized someone born in in Mongolia, simply because they come from a less populous country, vs the opposite that is happening now.
I'm not claiming there is a moral argument to be made: the way the US residency program is implemented is neither moral or immoral.
> I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China.
How do you qualify "best" & "brightest?" I'm a 1st generation US Citizen (of Indian decent). Both my parents immigrated here. My dad was drafted for Vietnam and then continued to serve in the US Army for 20 years, and my mom was a lunch lady. My parents don't have CS degrees, and instead worked blue collar jobs to make sure we could have a better life than they did.
It works by zones, not by country.
And that exactly defines the problem and why US citizens, in general, hate the H1-B program.
The solution to the H1-B program is to transition H1-B's to green cards in 12 months. The company sponsoring the H1-B is responsible executing the paperwork, background checks, and posting a bond to fund the spot checks, investigations, etc.
H1-B sponsors will drop through the floor. However, companies that genuinely want the specific person will continue to be just fine.
> This will cause "labor abandonment" and put more pressure on the economy.
There is no evidence that companies are having trouble finding workers outside of Silicon Valley. Precisely the opposite, they are laying off people.
Companies don't fire a person who suddenly has a green card. That person voluntarily leaves for a better job.
1) They've entered into some agreements where they agree to pay the company some big penalty if they leave. This is clearly illegal but still happens. So, the employee knows he/she can do a job transfer but the penalty holds them back. Some of them might be advised to seek a lawyer but they worry about the expense involved. Bottom line is they are scared to move because of this.
2) The person has started the Green Card Process and does not wish to 'go back to the end of the line' which happens if they switch jobs unless they have gotten to the final stage of the Green Card Process and have waited for 180 days with no decision taken on their application.
So in effect, H1B is just glorified tech slavery. The way to fix this system would be to allow H1B workers to apply anywhere they want without effecting other processes such as green cards. This would immediately not only stop slave labor but also bring wage parity to market.
Easily switch jobs in the US? No. Move back to their "home" countries? Yes.
H1B is/can be used as a form of leverage to limit the mobility of workers, and potential other forms of employer abuse. That is unfortunate, and it's clear the H1B system is broken.
All people living in the same region should obviously have the same rights. They pay taxes like everybody else so of course they should get equal representation as well.
I'm not.
While I agree that H1B is a stupid system, for everybody, I also think you should be more careful with your choice of words. Saying H1B is slavery is like comparing US police brutality cases to Nazism.
I think it's important to emphasize that rigged immigration systems like this hurt Americans and immigrants alike. There's no reason blue blooded Americans and immigrants shouldn't be united on this. Immigrants don't want to come here to be treated like a second class and we don't want to have to compete with exploited workers.
If this characterization is correct, isn't this essentially what a typical staffing company does? That is, put a worker in a position at a third party company as a temp paying them x salary, then collecting from the client third party company x + y salary. With the only difference being in this case that the person placed comes from another country on an H1B.
(1) The laws are designed to eliminate choice and freedom to pursue other jobs for the people being placed.
(2) "Staffer" company is able to take their 50% or more cut from their salary for entire decade or more every single month.
Imagine if you were running staffer company with this business model where law says that workers can't leave the job you placed them and you get to pocket major part of their income for decade or more.
Technically sure they can leave your employment but practically they can't because they still get paid bit better than their home country although much less than prevalent wages in US even after staffer takes his 50% cut.
There is always the marriage fast track option :)
Also in this particular case, I fundamentally believe there are a number of talented engineers working at these outsourcing companies because it was their only option and they're too afraid to move.
My friends brother is 24 and has listed 5 years of experience on his resume even though he has none. Now he is working for a major bank in critical financial infrastructure.
- For example, if you go work for outsourcing company that pays only when there is work to be done (this is illegal by the way) then as soon as you try to transfer visa, you will be kicked out of US and company will be in trouble. The reason for this is that when you transfer visa they require you to provide pay stubs for at least trailing 3 months. If these pay stubs don't add up to what you were suppose to get paid, you and the company will be in trouble.
- Early stage StartUps will generally pass costs and co-ordination of getting green card on you.
- More problems will come when you try to apply for green card. Transparency in salary is not something startups like so management will be reluctant to advertise your salary publicly which is mandatory during the process (postings around the office, outside the building, newspapers, company website, etc).
If you as an employee take action for not being paid while on H1B status, you are more or less OK. This step includes filing for a DOL complaint and adding copy of that complaint as the H1B transfer.
Also companies have to advertise your salary publicly (at least around the office) for H1B.
What, really? Sorry I don't really know anything about H1B but when you say advertise does this mean it needs to be on like a bulletin board or something? Or does this mean it simply needs to be available for anyone who asks? Also, why does it need to be public?
As people below mentioned, it is anonymized and typically shows the salary range and the job classification.
Triplebyte also seems mistaken about how the H1B transfer works:
"If you're working on a H-1B at one of these outsourcing companies, apply to Triplebyte and we'll cover all the costs of transferring your H-1B."
Or are just that many employees being ripped off?
Can you help clarify this? The three stages I'm aware of to obtain permanent residence in the United States are:
1) PERM (Department of Labour certification)
2) I-140
3) I-485
The PERM is (always?) undertaken and paid for by the employer. The I-140 is also sponsored by the employer, so should be paid by the employer. But the I-485 (the actual green card application) does not have to be paid by the employer. If you submit I-485 forms for your family members, those also do not need to be paid by the employer.
This is separate from attorney fees (if any) to obtain the I-485 for you or your family.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I basically went through this process (minus the PERM).
That said, I can see opportunity for a hiring agency that is knowledgable about the H1B process and could even refer lawyers to companies. Many new startups have no idea what they're doing, and are turned off from employing people on H1Bs because of it.
Suppose I am an SF based startup and I get a candidate from triplebyte that is on H1-B and is paid 66k by a body shop as a Level 1 Computer Programmer [0] but she is obviously talented and got taken advantage of by the body shop. Is it legal/ethical for me to still pay her ~66k if it seems like she really should be a Level 4 Systems Software Developer[1] at 138k?
[0] http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-11...
[1] http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-11...
Do they? Ones that rely heavily on equity might (and I don't think you can count equity in such situations) but the tech sector is so full of money these days that I don't think developers are paid below market at all.
[0] http://www.programmersguild.org/archives/howtounderpay.htm
[1] http://cis.org/PayScale-H1BWages
[2] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-bogus-high-tech...
I currently have the label SysAdmin, but you could easily call me a programmer, a systems engineer or a devops engineer, because my job role includes all those things.
(As an aside, sysadmin is the lowest-paid of all of those titles, which suggests that I could get a raise by finding an employer willing to call my role something more expensive.)
The rule that H1B workers get paid the prevailing wage is... quite difficult to verify or enforce.
My own (completely anecdotal and subjective) experience is that the H1B workers I've known well enough to exchange salary data were either way better than me technically, or they were getting paid way less than I was. My impression is that foreigners (esp. foreigners from lower cost-of-living countries) get paid less for the same skill.
Disclaimer: the single income restriction is why I fought to get a L-1 visa instead.
This isn't true anymore http://www.immihelp.com/h4-visa-ead/
Also, very often a company needs someone qualified and found a particular candidate they want and tries to apply for him. I'm not sure how taking one of the many low qualified "engineer" coming with these outsourcing companies would fit the need here.
Our goal isn't to directly hurt the outsourcing companies, it's to help talented engineers find work they enjoy and not be held back by visa fears. Even doing that for a few people would be worthwhile.
Perhaps the petition fee should be non-refundable for H1B dependent employers.
All briliant non-tech scientist would have no chance of getting the visa.
... major attraction for employers, especially in Silicon Valley, is the "handcuffed" status of H-1Bs ...
There is no tech labor shortage.
No study, other than those sponsored by the industry, has ever shown a shortage.
"Tech labor shortage" is not a clear-cut black-and-white issue. The market is not fully elastic to easily use terms such as 'shortage', etc.
Say, you need to build a team of 5 machine learning scientist with specific experience in image recognition, there may be 100 people in the country specializing in this field, and perhaps 10 of them are the job market, and 7 are international citizens. Then you have a serious case of shortage, and face the possibility of losing the project/business/market to a company in Israel, India, or China that has the requisite staff or to a company in Canada or Australia, where immigration laws are more sensible.
At the same time, there may be no shortage for generally skilled engineers fresh out of college.
Thanks for the thoughtful contribution to the debate !
Generally skilled engineers are great for training programs.
Sounds like something pretty easy to fix.
This is all fine, but it is disingenuous to claim shortages when the real problem is a refusal to pay market wages.
Also if you think AU immigration is sensible then, boy howdy! Do I have news for you!
(source: i'm indian and i have a lot of friends who moved here on a H1B through the 'outsourcing' companies).
If those are companies that are illiterate on the most basic things, such the difference between an H-1B application and a transfer then there's a good chance they will fuck it up on the important parts.
Important things like H-1B renewal schedule, green card sponsorship, visa renewal expenses and so on.
You change jobs and the next thing you know is that you're stuck in the USA for up to 6 months because one of the overworked founders didn't apply for the renewal early enough.
The above is an easily manageable one compared to all the horror scenarios that a mismanaged H-1B immigration can be.
As and aside, with all the offtopic comments going one: while the H1B program is definitely flawed I think it's amazing that no one stops to consider the ethics of draining the 3rd world of its talent.
If there are all these amazing talented programmers in India or wherever, then maybe YC should open an office there
Who pays them in the meanwhile because I believe its illegal to be on H1b and not be employed (being paid)?
Disclaimer: IANAL but I recently looked into a lot of this.
As a Canadian, I have no interest in becoming a US citizen. On a TN visa you can open bank accounts (including investment), buy cars and real estate and do everything other than start a company. It's incredibly convenient and painless compared to an H1-B.
Most people gunning for H1-Bs want to become US Citizens. Canadians have no such need, we just want to work in the US legally and be able to buy stuff and make investments, all of which you can do easily on a TN.
Really? I know a lot of Canadians with US citizenship.
And that's definitely an advantage over TN.
During that time , I got promoted and my salary increased by 200$/month. At the same time , another vendor took over our project. So the resource management people from my employer called me and told "Since you are earning more salary ( 62K + 200$/month ) , you are not eligible for any other job location as per the company policy and you have to go back to India. So book your tickets & get ready to fly back !
The amount of depression I had to face was immense. It was December in Kansas and it was very cold. I remember smoking 2 packs of cigarettes inside my apartment every day. I had a used car which was under loan from DCU. My apartment lease had 5-6 months left. I was in total jeopardy thinking what to do. Thank god I was not married & had kids going to school, because pulling kids out of school and flying them back to India , making them adjust to the environment back in India would have been a nightmare. Kids will have had a huge culture shock.
Still, being a bachelor, I felt very bad. But I put myself together and started applying for companies thru linkedin and indeed. Two companies responded and I went thru many levels of interview ( I already had flight tickets booked, my bags almost packed and gave power of attorney to my friend to sell the car and settle the loan ). With all those things happening in the background , I cleared the interview for both of the companies for full time employment. I had to fly to company locations for face to face. ( Both companies arranged the travel & stay )
Both companies were ready to transfer my H1B visa. I chose the big financial services company thinking about my job security as an H1B worker. Here comes the catch ! They were not ready to negotiate the salary. They are no small company ( It is the top financial services company)
The HR knew very well knew that I was on H1B and the stupid me told them that I desperately need to transfer my visa , since my Indian employer told me to go back to India. So they took advantage of the situation and were not willing to negotiate. I had to settle with 80K/year with the big financial services company and they transferred my visa in premium & I resigned from the Indian employer. It was either take it or leave situation and I had no other choice but to accept the offer.
To summarise , I am no low skilled worker and I cleared the interviews very well. I am well qualified and good at my programming skills. The American counterparts in my office earn more than me ( ~120K ) for the same skillset and work that I do. So how did I ended up like this ? Just because of this broken immigration system. I had to transfer my visa without negotiating my salary because of my situation and the rule that I will be out of status from the very next day my employer stops my payroll.
" I was the victim of this broken immigration system of US ". My situation is one of the examples of how employers abuse H1B workers.
I am getting married in Jan 2016, so I will stay with my current employer which took advantage of my situation. And hey my future wife can't work on H4 !. She recently resigned her job at Oracle in India and is preparing for the wedding. I feel bad for her because now she has to sit in the apartment and watch TV wasting her productive years in US. She is a Masters degree holder in finance & has excellent communication skills in both English & French.
So what do I plan to do now ?. Since im getting married in Jan 2016, I will wait till then. Once I get married , I will switch employer and negotiate a good salary because right now I am not in that situation while I was in Kansas.
Will I wait for my greencard to be processed ( 6-7 years ) NO. Why ? I am 30 now , so it will be 38,39 when I get my freedom and that too with the ever changing rules of USCIS. I don't want to try my luck.
Will I wait for my I-140 to be approved so that my wife can work ? NO. Why ? Again I dont trust this broken immigration system.
So what am I going to do about this ? , Canadian Express Entry gives importance to skilled workers rather than the lottery system and I will get PR within 6 months. My fiance is a degree holder and will get extra points for French. So we will qualify for the PR system.
I don't want to wait in this uncertainty till I grow old to get my freedom. I rather trust Canadian Express Entry and move to Canada.
As a good software engineer you can live pretty much anywhere in world, either live with the consequences of accepting US system or move somewhere else. Over time it will get better but complaining that its not fair will not solve it.
For your mistakes, don't blame the employer. If you disclose them your needs they will take advantage. Also you were not a bonded labour while at your big financial firm you could have applied to other position and get better offers.
Is it substantially easier for foreign workers to immigrate into your home country?
I'm sure you didn't mean to sound extremely rude or ignorant, but that's what you ended up sounding like.
As for your source -- how about common sense and the most basic econ 101 chart on supply, demand and price? http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.... The higher the supply the lower the price.
Hardly sounds like they're being exploited and suffering due to a glut in supply. Either that or "exploitation" rates in the US are double the market rate in Canada/EU.
(That said, I've seen startups in Toronto offering $50k/year lol!)
Since you do bring up salaries though, after taxes, health premiums, co-pays, 75 will get you a shared 1br rent in SF. If that is good for you, great. Don't say it "should" be good for everyone, it isnt. We live in a market economy, so everyone needs to play by the rules, not try to justify market manipulations with "well, oh, that should be good for you."
Absent government interference, that includes supply and competition from foreign workers who, surprise, by and large do not feel exploited making more in a year than their parents back home make in a decade.
Of course foreign workers dont feel exploited -- if they did, they would not come here!