Did you read the article? That was brought up in there.
My response assumes you're saying the journalist of the NYT piece is among "most of the people" not able to make a distinction between the 2 categories you laid out.
category 1: >between companies that hire the best they can get (and paying competitive salaries),
NYT article: "Proponents of the H-1B system argue that it is an important vehicle to attract top talent to America. After coming to the United States, these visa holders may apply their skills to start new companies or create new, innovative products"
category 2: >and outsourcing companies that file a ton of applications (and pay their employees much less).
NYT article: "The H-1B program’s critics say the system provides a way for American companies to turn over technology departments to outsourcing companies. These are gaming the system to snap up the visas so they can replace American workers with less expensive, temporary staff members."
It seems the NYT journalist has correctly distinguished both categories. (There are more paragraphs in that article that add more details about both categories but I only copypasted 1 example of each.)
There is a difference between proponents and critics describing the same activity in different terms and noting that different companies treat the system differently and that it is roughly bimodal: "Google's" use and "Infosys'" abuse.
I interpreted the two quotes you pulled as the former.
The 2 quotes I pulled for 2 different categories are not describing the same activity:
"top talent to America" != "less expensive, temporary staff members"
The "top talent innovative products" is intended to describe Google or Tesla hiring a rare PhD scientist from Germany to work on deep machine learning or automated driving algorithms.
The "less expensive, temp staff" is meant to describe loophole abuses like Infosys.
reddit.com is that way --->
It is true that the NYT article mentions the proponents and the critics, but they conflate the companies themselves. In other words, it sounds like the proponents and critics are talking about the same phenomenon.
Farther along it becomes even clearer when they say suppressing wages is good for the economy but at what cost.
"In other words, it’s true that cheaper labor helps employers increase profits and grow, and having more skilled workers in the United States contributes to economic innovation. But at the same time, individual American employees do face more salary pressure from newcomers who will work for less. And in some cases, they risk losing their jobs entirely, especially older employees who earn higher salaries."
@ericseppanen's point is that the two groups are not the same.
(A lot of the other critics in the HN comment section also seem to argue that the innovative tech companies are doing the same thing as the outsourcers.)
The NYT journalists are aware of that. The commenter ericseppanen with his incorrect interpretation of the text has done a disservice to the HN readers trusting it as accurate and upvoting his comment to the top.
One of writer's profiles is of Mr. Jeff Tan and how he's harmed by HCL Technologies which is an Indian tech firm (similar to bodyshops abusing H1B like Infosys.) The critics' commentary about H1B is talking about this bucket of people.
The other profile is talking about "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found" and the examples of that in the article include Microsoft and Google. The proponents commentary about H1B is talking about this bucket.
The authors of the article have interwoven both groups together throughout the narrative which may be confusing for some readers -- but that doesn't mean that the writers are so clueless that they completely don't understand the distinction between the two. They clearly do. Interweaving the text for stylistic purposes does not mean they have mistakenly conflated the 2 groups.
To summarize the 2 different groups being profiled:
"HCL Technologies" example != "Google/Microsoft" example
"HCL staff in India replacing Mr. Tan at UCSF" != "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found"
>the proponents and the critics, but they conflate the companies themselves. In other words, it sounds like the proponents and critics are talking about the same phenomenon.
No, not the same phenomenon:
critics("outsourcing companies with less expensive, temporary staff members") != proponents("top talent to create new innovative products")
In the article cited, the authors only mention Google and Microsoft once:
"... Technology giants like Microsoft and Google have pressed for increases in the annual quotas, saying there are not enough Americans with the skills they need.
But for tech workers like Mr. Tan, the program has had very negative consequences."
If you don't see that as conflation, I don't know how we will agree on this.
It's the not quantity of times Google & Microsoft is mentioned. The point is that they are mentioned in the same paragraph as the preceding sentence, "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills to fill jobs when qualified Americans cannot be found."
The specific text you pasted has a line break to signify 2 separate paragraphs and the 2nd paragraph starts with a "But..." Those two spatial organization cues in the text is telling the reader to parse them as 2 separate groups instead of conflating them.
The Mr. Tan anecdote is for the other group harmed by H1B abusers such as outsourcers replacing his UCSF job with cheap labor.
NYT's 2 groups:
group 1: "professionals with college degrees and specialized skills" (Google, MS)
group 2: "outsourcers cheap labor" (HCL, Infosys)
ericseppanen's 2 groups in his parent comment:
group 1: companies that hire the best they can get (and paying competitive salaries),
group 2: and outsourcing companies that file a ton of applications (and pay their employees much less).
ericseppanen's original complaint was that the writers didn't understand there are 2 different types of companies. Yes, the writers did understand that and they provided dual anecdotes for both types. The writers actually made the same distinction that ericseppanen wanted them to make!
>If you don't see that as conflation,
I will offer up a theory as to why some readers think the NYT writers mistakenly conflate them: the article only has "humanizing" profiles of real people hurt by the negative H1B abusers. The writers didn't bother to add human stories for the positive H1B "top talent innovators" such as quoting a rare PhD scientist from Germany helping them invent flying cars or whatever. (The examples of Google + Microsoft + proponents espousing benefits are "abstract" citations not "human" ones.) Because the story is one-sided in quantity of anecdotes emphasizing the negative H1B, readers may think the writers conflate the categories.
Although the authors may be biased for emphasizing the abuses of H1B by outsourcers, that doesn't mean they are not aware of the other type of H1B companies that attracting the best talent in the world.