Bay Area professionals indicted for H-1B visa fraud
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
Weeks into his employment the developer came to me and asked if there was anyone he could report work complaints to. I gave him contact information for the state's employment agency. It took another week before I realized that he needed to be informed that the state agency protects him whether he's a citizen or not, and that he wasn't trying to report a former employer.
I know many talented people who have come to the US on H-1B clean and have been successful. I, too, do not blame the workers. The employers are abusing the system, and if it continues there must be much stricter oversight.
Finding loopholes in the system to enhance profits and be more competitive is part of a game. So I find it difficult to blame employers. The problem lies in policy and enforcement; something is very wrong if it makes sense from a business and risk management perspective to break the rules.
Incentives are wrong all over the place, Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless. Why would any civil servant sweat prosecuting big businesses, when he can just close an eye and wait for a revolving door to appear shortly after?
Ever heard the saying, "Treat them like dirt, they'll cling to you like mud?"
“but what should we do when the highborn and wealthy take to crime? Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger, how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man who breaks the law out of greed?”
Corruption between regulators and the regulated predates Reaganism by quite a lot. The problem here isn't a lack of authority on the part of the government. It's misaligned incentives and poor policy-making.
This topic is being abused by the most liberal companies in the most liberal cities. i get the feeling its mostly ignored and not prosecuted (like illegal immigration) is because they feel its better for everyone. I am not taking a stance on whether that is correct, but don't for one second blame that on Reaganism.
HN comments usually skew hugely against any kind of regulation and towards "free market will take care of it", except when it comes to jobs and pay it seems.
H1B, by design, interferes with the free market in hiring. Even worse, the current implementation clearly stacks the deck in favor of corporations and employers and suppresses wages for the entire tech workforce.
Hmmm... that gives me an idea. Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law?
That would provide some serious incentive for sponsor companies to keep their nose clean if they realized that the the folks they bring over can get them busted and still stay in the country.
Those protections are already in place. Once the H1 transfer is complete, there's very little relation the worker retains to the original employer.
Why not let them have their work visa no matter what? Why should their visa be tied to their employer at all? That just invites abuse.
As for their employer, how about any employer found to be breaking the law with regard to foreign workers gets his citizenship revoked and is deported? We could use more hard-working immigrants, and then for anyone complaining about too many immigrants, if we ship out a bunch of our home-grown garbage (abusive managers) that'll free up room. We should deport all the HR people involved in these cases too while we're at it, because they're obviously complicit.
I have seen both sides to this. I've worked with brilliant developers on H1-B visas who were brought in as the system intended. I've also seen lots of job postings that were tailored to meet the requirements of a H1-B position, i.e. Poorly formatted, unintelligible, word salad with impossible requirements.
Disneyland firing their IT staff and replacing all of them with an exclusive H1-B outsourcer raised all kinds of alarms. It was stories like these that made the government scrutinize those visa schemes further. Glad to see people going to jail for it.
What I have a problem with is the companies who employ them. The intent of the H1-B visa is for companies to be able to hire workers with skills they can't hire for in America. The reality is that 99% of H1-B programmers are hired because they're cheaper or some other anti-labor reason. There is not a shortage of programmers in the US - I'll grant there could be in Silicon Valley or California - these companies are not looking very hard for programmers, and they're more willing to get someone from a foreign country than pay for relocation for someone from say, Iowa, or to open an office there. So, frankly, I see virtually every tech company hiring H1-Bs as committing immigration fraud in order to screw over people like me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1b#No_labor_shortages - basically sums it up.
Unlike other people in this thread, I don't give a fig for free markets, except to the extent they make people's lives better, which they do have a decent track record of doing in many instances. Since I live in America and only the US government has direct power over the lives of Americans, I judge US government policy by that criteria. It seems clear to me a global free market for labor is the worst thing imaginable for Americans in the short term, and the world population in the very long run. Free immigration is a handout to corporations, who want to expand the labor pool as much as possible so they can play us all off against each other on a grand scale. It disgusts me enough to watch corporations and businesses play off state and national governments against each other for tax incentives and subsidies. I'm not interested in programming being a minimum-wage job or living under any more of a global techno-corporate system than I already do.
I'd be willing to relocate there if it made economic sense. If H1B were not available and bay area salaries higher, it would be more in the realm of personality.
I know a lot of great engineers in "flyover states" that more than understand that they'd have to take a decrease in standard of living to move to the Bay Area so don't even consider it.
Yup. According to all the cost of living calculators I'd need upwards of $175k in SF to match what I'm getting at the moment in boring old Tennessee. There's no way it's worth it for me.
It's a wash.
Every US company I've worked at has favored hiring locally, hiring US citizens etc. if only because there is less uncertainty relating to the visa situation, and the process of applying for H1B and green card is not cheap. However, if you have qualified workers applying to your company and you determine they are a good fit, you will try to hire them. Because ultimately you, the company, does want to stay competitive and hire good workers who are motivated enough to 1) Get the technical skills and 2) Actively seek out great opportunities.
Her is another thing I noticed about the tech companies I've worked at: Once you're an employee and in good standing, the company will do almost anything to help you remain that way. Paying extra for the visa and green card process is just another expense; spending extra time and money to convince joe tech worker to move from nowheretown is just a lot more complex.
My solution to this problem would be more comprehensive. Instead of reactive policies like increasing the minimum salary requirement or decreasing visas, create a more comprehensive job matching program/board. Have a system where companies looking for engineers must register and get matched with Americans looking for jobs and interview them. If you're really serious about helping Iowan programmers, then make it more convenient for companies to find the kind of workers they are looking for.
I said I would address "reasonable pay" more. A lot of people seem to think that if you can't find employee at salary A, you just need to increase the salary and employees will magically appear. This is just not the way the market works. If American workers become too expensive, it becomes more cost effective to open a satellite office in another country and the jobs move overseas.
I agree. That's why I support the abolition of the H1-B visa program, at least in the form it currently takes. As long as it exists, companies will abuse it. Part of the problem is to some extent, the government has been captured by corporate interests.
> Many (not all, of course) workers are extremely unwilling to move, and may even be really unhappy about moving away from the social structures that they are comfortable with.
This is absolutely true. It's also true that programmers, especially, can work remotely or in cheap satellite offices, and that this is probably preferable to them moving all around. Strengthening social structures for American workers should be a priority of the government. It makes for happier, healthier, better-adjusted people. It makes for people less prone to mental illnesses like depression and drug addiction, less likely to become homeless, and more likely to be deeply involved in their community and local politics. (Something I have been considering for a while now is the flagrant corruption in local US politics that is becoming increasingly enabled by transient populations who haven't lived in the same place for decades, and therefore lack deep knowledge and experience of local issues and local politicians, and who aren't much interested because they don't expect themselves, their children, or their grandchildren to remain in the area.) It also often has the side-effect of making life a lot cheaper. If your retired grandparents are willing to watch your kids while you're at work, that's a lot cheaper than paying for daycare.
> A lot of people seem to think that if you can't find employee at salary A, you just need to increase the salary and employees will magically appear. This is just not the way the market works. If American workers become too expensive, it becomes more cost effective to open a satellite office in another country and the jobs move overseas.
If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.
Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.
No thanks.
The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.
Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.
Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.
> Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.
> No thanks.
Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Do you expect the current imbalance in wealth and development between countries to continue in perpetuity? This imbalance has been the product of some very unique circumstances in world history and will not last for very much longer.
Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.
> The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.
I completely agree with the huge amount of social and financial capital in the US. But I don't believe its the operating factor in keeping businesses local. One of the main advantages of SF is that it acts as a magnet for talent from all over the world. Cut that off, and you won't have that anymore.
The wiser strategy would be to exploit that capital to continue to build on existing structures and strengthen the position of the US economy to attract the best talent. I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.
> Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.
That is protectionism. And it never helps. Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.
I'm for free markets where they work, and against free markets where they don't. I do not care whether free markets exist or not. I care about whatever improves the lives of people. When free markets help that cause, I am for them. When they do not, I am against them. Free markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are a tool. If a hammer will help me drive in a nail, I'll use a hammer, but I don't care about hammers in themselves.
I don't see anything ironic about this position.
>Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not.
That is a decision that's entirely up to the people of the world. It is not some kind of fatal inevitability. Corporate interests in the West have been pushing strongly for it, but there are plenty of examples of powerful economies controverting this thesis, and, to all appearances, plan to do so for the indefinite future. Of course, recently, we see on top of this where previously pro-common market economies are withdrawing from that ideal - the UK with Brexit, the US from the TPP, and the immigration debate in both countries.
> Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.
Good programmers are all over the place. Of course, everyone wants to hire the very best programmers, which are by definition limited, but good, productive programmers exist in tremendous numbers all over the world, including in very poor countries where five grand is a lot of money.
On top of that, considering the direction the world is going in (automation of manufacturing and services), and the continual cheerleading of STEM and programming in particular as a profession, we can only expect the number of good programmers to increase.
> I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.
Because, frankly, the "Golden Goose" has absolutely zilch to do with H1-B visas. There are a lot of tremendously talented H1-B developers, absolutely. But the number of H1-B developers that are tremendously more talented than unemployed and flyover-country US programmers is approximately nada. (But only approximately. A real H1-B visa that worked only for unique talent might be worthwhile.)
In addition, you're quite simply wrong. Protectionism sometimes hurts. Free trade sometimes helps. Protectionism sometimes helps. Free trade sometimes hurts. Sometimes, a little protectionism ameliorates severe short-term pain and turns it into mild long-term pain. Pragmatism should always be preferred to free-market ideology or protectionist ideology.
> Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.
People like to paint these doomsday pictures of protectionism, where all the rest of the world cuts you off. The reality is there is plenty of protectionism being engaged in already by the free-market West and nobody cares. Let alone the degree of protectionism engaged in by countries like China, which is presently nurturing multitudes of multi-billion dollar businesses without any kind of horrible punishment.
True for a small local business, but with larger outfits an entire department gets outsourced to a cheaper country. This brings the headache of extra overhead, project management, travel and difficulty in scheduling meetings due to time zones, but at certain scale the companies can handle that.
Do we as a society
* want an economic policy that disadvantages small businesses in favor of large businesses?
* want to initiate a long-term migration of entire departments and then companies and then industries offshore?
If we as a society are completely okay with this, then this seems like a reasonable economic policy.
I have an extreme hatred for the companies that use H-1Bs as body shops to replace American workers. It is definitely not in the spirit or stated goal of the law, and most through trickery skirt the letter of the law. Those people and the managers who hire those companies are scum.
Immigration is a part of the US (well, expect for where I'm typing this, but that's a different story). I believe a lot of rural American has been mischaracterized by the news. Farm country knows a tad bit about immigration. The problem is trickery by body shops which basically gives lie to to the whole STEM shortage, and the worry that folks we are bringing here aren't looking for a better life and actively are seeking to harm. This second point would not apply to almost all H-1Bs.
We need to change how H-1Bs work so that we are getting people that we don't have. This should be at a premium price for those workers (after all, if you have skills not available in the US, then you should be paid for it). I still say a minimum salary requirement of $90,000 for any STEM worker on an H-1B would correct a lot of the problems in the system.
Most of the overseas ones were incompetent and unable to learn or use logic. Many of them honestly couldn't compete with an average American 5th grader. Yes I'm serious.
Also some weren't potty trained. Seriously. I still have an email containing directions about how to use the bathroom.
I think you just disagreed with the concept of globalization. Granted that human resources are more complex than other resources. However, judging by your use of term "unfair pricing" on human, you seem to make no distinction between them in this discussion.
Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets paid many times more than an Indian worker even when they do exactly the same job. Letting those Indian workers come to America and compete on more equal terms is among the fairest things you can do.
So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination?
Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
?! By this argument it's unfair that Indian workers get paid more in the US than they do in India, as this is unfair to people who do the job in India for less?
If the work is essentially the same in all locations, it's unfair that the wages aren't the same everywhere. Certainly, the work may not be the same everywhere, and not all workers are providing the same level of work etc. If the worker in India provides the same value to the company as the worker in the US, how is it fair that they are paid differently?
There's also a massive difference in cost of living, and maybe it's fair to pay someone more because the business chooses to hold offices in an expensive place; OTOH, maybe it's more fair to pay everyone the same, and close offices in HCOL areas because you can't attract employees at a fair wage.
You're never going to get equal pay for equal work on a global scale.
Sure, but does that mean unequal pay is fair? And if it's unfair, isn't it unfair to both the worker who is paid less, and the worker who is paid more? If the system becomes more fair, workers who were paid more will see a wage decrease, but won't typically be excited to see more fairness.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you consider to be fair?
While the indicted in this article did visa fraud, the majority of migrant tech workers are brought totally above board although at significantly lower wages.
It's as fair as buying something for cheaper when you can.
In fact, it's probably more fair as globalization lifts foreign workers out of poverty.
A richer local worker loses while a poorer foreign worker wins and the U.S. overall wins.
Being middle class in a third world country and being poor in a poverty-stricken American zip code are different enough that it's not even worth deciding who has it worse.
Your assertion may be wrong; it depends on what is "poor" in a poverty-stricken zipcode.
The median per capita income in India is 616$. PPP adjusted that is 2351$.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... shows people at the 6.48th percentile in the United States earn $2500.
That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place?
It seems a breakdown of the social contract to me.
I think there's definitely two ways to look at this one.
If the tax system is so broken that the poorer are paying for the richer's protection, then fix the tax system so that the rich person pays the "correct/fair" amount. For example, remove most of the deductions and other rules and replace it with a simple flat tax.
Anyways, why are you saying "rich people"? Ordinary people own these companies and purchase from these companies. They benefit.
This isn't about tax rates, it's about a social contract, a small few are allowed to capture a significant % of the economic output of a country, to reap the benefits of the legal and military power of that country. As part of that, they need to share, and they're sharing increasingly less. They think it their "skill" rather than their lucky upbringing, their fortunate birthplace.
There's far more to life, and to a country, than GDP.
As for ordinary people "owning" companies, that's either a naive or disingenuous argument. They're a tiny percentage. It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery has almost entirely been captured by rich people and ordinary people haven't seen an effective wage increase in a decade.
The stats don't back your stance.
Of course it's about economics as it deals with policy and impacts on people. Simple arguments are better.
Not using economics is a cop-out from using rigorous quantitative analysis. It's interesting that on say climate change HN will be all like we should follow the science, yet economics is the science relevant to our discussion.
> There's far more to life, and to a country, than GDP.
True, so what? More money is still better. GDP per capita is a good measure of peoples' living standards.
An interesting read about "The Economics of Happiness" is https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke201... by Ben S. Bernanke, former chair of the Federal Reserve (the part starting from "As you might guess, when thinking about the sources of psychological well-being" is most relevant).
https://www.gapminder.org/news/hdi-surprisingly-similar-to-g...
> As for ordinary people "owning" companies, that's either a naive or disingenuous argument.
The stats don't back your stance. "Compare that to the middle class, which has a median value of a mere $14,000 a household."
Also, bond yields (and bank interest) go up when stock yields go up and (I don't know if CNN counted this or not) people invest in retirement funds which invest in stock. And insurance companies also invest their customers' money.
(http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/18/investing/stock-market-inves... )
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/03/retail-investors-hold-38-of...
"A surprising fact revealed in the report is that retail investors have invested $9.8 trillion in the U.S. equities, or 38 percent of the total $25.8 trillion corporate equity holdings. Additionally, $812 billion hedge fund assets belong to US retail investors. To put in context hedge funds have total assets under management of approximately $2 trillion. This would mean that approximately 40% of hedge fund assets come from retail investors in the US, the remainder comes from foreign investors and institutions."
> They're a tiny percentage. It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery has almost entirely been captured by rich people and ordinary people haven't seen an effective wage increase in a decade.
The stats don't back your stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Income_Share_of_Top_... here, rejoice that the top 1%'s share is mostly static
Meanwhile,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N it's increased by 7.3% from 2012-2015
Interestingly, you said "The stats don't back your stance." while not using any stats yourself and only using weasel words like "It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-i...
Graph looks severely different to the one you just posted.
I'm not going to try and debate anything with someone who thinks economics is the only measure of life, you're too narrow minded.
> I'm not going to try and debate anything with someone who thinks economics is the only measure of life, you're too narrow minded.
I don't think money is the only measure of life. Then what do you want to use to measure it?
See. This is the problem. Is it fair to buy a Toyota because it's cheaper than a Cadillac? You either accept globalization or you don't. Globalization brings nice and bad things. You can't just have your cake and eat it to. Doing that will result in inefficiencies that in the long term will kill your internal economy. Imagine the USA didn't have access to outsourcing. Industries would have collapsed instead of bringing the top level jobs the US citizen enjoys now.
I also don't believe in totally free markets. A flat 10% import terrif on ALL goods and services promotes home grown capital intensive industry where appropriate. Sparking long term growth, while allowing counties to import and export goods where appropriate.
Check out the demographic increases in western European countries. Ireland's population has increased 50% in 10-15 years and a majority of it is accounted for by immigration from poorer countries within the Schengen.
Now the disparity in wealth between even poor and wealthy European countries isn't anything like the disparity between countries at a global level, but you reckon that anybody should be able to move to the US to work.
Hence why unemployment is going back to pre-crisis levels in Ireland, right?: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate
This is like your third comment bashing Freedom of Movement inside the EU without single proof to back it up. I'd like to let you know I have downvoted those three comments of yours for being not only wrong, but for trying to spread false information. If you support that it's not false, please produce the evidence. I am open minded about the topic.
> Now the disparity in wealth between even poor and wealthy European countries isn't anything like the disparity between countries at a global level, but you reckon that anybody should be able to move to the US to work.
The wealth gap between poor and wealthy EU countries is closing down thanks to the Single Market. That's the idea behind it, get together countries with wealth disparity and help the poorer become stronger, which in turn helps the rest by adding more wealthy buyers to your market. It's a win-win and it has worked wonders.
You don't need to keep saying variations of "western economies are improving". I know what's going on in the world.
> The wealth gap between poor and wealthy EU countries is closing down thanks to the Single Market. That's the idea behind it, get together countries with wealth disparity and help the poorer become stronger, which in turn helps the rest by adding more wealthy buyers to your market. It's a win-win and it has worked wonders.
More specifically it's to do with EU membership, and stimulus packages arising from membership. It's not solely related to trading benefits within the single market, and in fact much of the improvements that have taken place in poorer EU countries are due to exports to non-EU countries (Russia/Ukraine etc), i.e. completely unrelated to the single market. But anyway, how is stimulus meant to work at a global level (bear in mind though that this conversation only started because somebody said anybody should be able to work in the US without restriction)
No, I keep telling you unemployment is going down on EU countries. I won't fall for your trick - I'm not talking about the economy (so you can't talk about "economy is good only for big companies that employ migrants" or some other conspiracy theory).
Unemployment. Is. Going. Down. "Despite" (or partly thanks to). Migration.
> More specifically it's to do with EU membership, and stimulus packages arising from membership.
Stimulus packages that come from wealth created by having access to a bigger workforce and a richer market. Yes, I know how the EU works.
Do you think rich countries don't benefit of the EU? I know it's a complex topic that requires an active interest and probable some research, so let's do this: Sit back and watch how the UK tries to cling on to Single Market's membership. Even UKIP is already asking for it. UKIP, the anti-immigration party. Yep.
> It's not solely related to trading benefits within the single market, and in fact much of the improvements that have taken place in poorer EU countries are due to exports to non-EU countries (Russia/Ukraine etc), i.e. completely unrelated to the single market.
Yeah, Romania definitely started improving their economy when they started trading with Russian and Ukraine. Same for Poland and the Baltics, too. Or maybe we should ask Czechia and Slovakia?
The Single Market is not just a free trade agreement. I would recommend you to read up on how it works as it is a complex topic.
> But anyway, how is stimulus meant to work at a global level (bear in mind though that this conversation only started because somebody said anybody should be able to work in the US without restriction)
Now I've got a surprise for you: I don't think the US should do FoM with the world. It might make sense for them to start with Canada and maybe the UK in about 10 years, when we see how Brexit is panning out. Then in 15-20 they can look at the EU and analyse if it would make sense to extend it to the EU too.
Immigration is good, but you have to account for how fast can you scale up your infrastructures and services. Opening up FoM between US and EU could be quite impactful for either. US culture is very attractive for EU citizens and there's a lot of love for places like California or New York due to movies, etc. None of this cities would be able to take a couple of million new inhabitants in 12 months.
But my opinion on US FoM is based on weak research. Maybe a serious study shows there's less desire to move than I think. I would personally don't move due to the healthcare mess the US is - but that might mean US citizens from depressed areas might prefer to rely on Canadian or European healthcare instead.
With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say).
These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again. I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country?
I called you out on your misinformation about FoM, that's all. I'm pretty sure we agree on the US topic :)
> With regards to unemployment going down, it is (like the Single Market) a complex issue. There's economic growth yeah, but we've also just had 5+ years of net emigration too, with foreign nationals leaving and ex-pats returning (in my country, I should say).
Again, you're trying to avoid looking at the numbers. Unemployment is in good numbers and good trends. "The economy" goes well, too - but one thing is not always the other.
> These changes are obvious on the ground, I feel. Anecdotally, the shift in demographics of public-facing service workers in my country has been stunning in the last 15 years. It's gone from almost all indigenous, to almost all Eastern European, to almost all indigenous again.
So that's your issue? the nationality of the workers you see?
If unemployment is almost only structural (very low %) - the nationality of those on employment is hardly relevant. Now if you had a 10% and all of them were locals, something must be wrong. That's not the case though.
> I'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed this in your own country?
I usually don't ask the nationality of random people :) and I work in a very international industry, so my views might be very skewed.
From Oxford University: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...
Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O-level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).
A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
> an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
A period of 10 years is a quarter of a person's working lifetime and is, at a personal level, not short term. Being in a European country I should point out too that the rate of large-scale immigration events happen more frequently than 10 years, and so some industries now remain in a constant state of upheaval in terms of indigenous employment.
I was in an industry that saw an almost overnight shift in indigenous employment, and worker's rights, upon migrations from Brazil, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It's only now, 10 years later, that it's becoming viable as a career prospect again because net emigration has increased. Of course, we had to put up with massive unemployment for under 30's in the meantime, and all of the social ramifications of this.
But yes, it's a small effect and is just propaganda. 30-40% of people under 30 just stayed unemployed long-term for fun.
When an immigrant moves into a country he contributes plenty to the local economy. He needs a haircut, so he goes to the local hairdresser. He needs groceries, so he goes to the local shop. He pays rent, buys a car, furniture, pays taxes, schools, etc etc. This helps a lot of people stay employed.
Economic crises happen. Industries - like paper and many others - simply become obsolete and some are going to die. If you are trivially replaced, or only qualified to work on a dying industry you're in for a tough time, and no amount of immigrant bans or protectionist policies is going to help you.
UK's unemployment levels are at a record low - is that the effect "this" (sic) has had on employment levels? Or are you referring to wages?
Apart from the other studies that have been cited in other responses, you have the LSE study on wages: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/05/11/immigration-from-th...
If you have any data to back up your claims, please produce it, because I can't find any for the life of me.
There is a ton of data to "back up my claims" because it's just what happened, and you should be aware of it.
Page 86 onwards in this OECD report for example.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=bRjX9W3EjZQC&pg=PA3&dq=Inte...
Or you can simply look up social welfare activation for foreign nationals vs unemployment rates. Or you can look at demographic increases by nationality and compare them to employment rates by industry. Do your own work and stop trying to rewrite history.
Wait, what? Who said "let's look at how last week progressed"? "record low" is precisely what it means: Record. It's the lowest since the 70s! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-...
You blame unemployment on immigration, yet there's barely no unemployment. At all.
> There is a ton of data to "back up my claims" because it's just what happened, and you should be aware of it.
Of course. Employment is at a record low, yet "it's just what happened". Are you trolling me?
> Page 86 onwards in this OECD report for example. > (link)
I've read a few pages, thanks for the link. What's your conclusion? Or did you just Google a few keywords and thought this study matched? Because I don't think this says what you think it says.
Even the f* title of the section is "Has the crisis reversed the progress made by migrants over the past decade?". And goes in to analyse the employment rate differences between foreign-born and local workers.
Even the graphs per country show that where unemployment grew (Spain, Ireland are very clear) it did for both, affecting migrants more than locals. In some occurrences foreign-born employment rates are higher than local rates, i.e. Hungary - hardly qualifies as a country taking loads of migrants, see page 90.
There's a US graph included (no FoM) and it has very similar trends as the rest of the stronger European countries. Dip during recession and recovery for both demographics.
But hey - what was the topic we were talking about? Oh yeah, how immigrants stole your bread. Well, try again with the evidence because the one you provided doesn't even talk about the same topic.
> Or you can simply look up social welfare activation for foreign nationals vs unemployment rates.
I guess you would've showed me if there was any hint of support to your theories.
> Or you can look at demographic increases by nationality and compare them to employment rates by industry.
Hahaha. I love how you suck at moving goal poses. Again, please show me the evidence.
> Do your own work and stop trying to rewrite history.
Well, this is the most ironic thing that happened to me in decades. Do I have now to produce evidence for your false claims? Do I have to do your work now?
I'm an immigrant, of course I have to do your work. How else, right?
I did my research and of course I'm unconsciously biased, but trying to be honest with myself I can't find evidence of migration having caused any negative effect on employment rates or wages on any European country, especially in the EU which is my area of interest.
You must be trolling but I'll say it once again, I know the general state of western economies. I understand that we are NOW in a period of low unemployment. I'm talking about the effect that immigration to certain western countries (half of OECD countries) had on employment levels, which you can verify in the study above whether you want to or not.
And as for the rest of your post...of course unemployment grew for all demographics during the recession.
Perhaps you're completely misunderstanding my point, because I never said that immigration caused unemployment, I said that it affected employment levels, i.e. the rates of employment between migrants and nationals, which again you can verify from the OECD study.
One of your co-defenders on here also pointed out another OECD study which says:
> An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
which again verifies what I'm saying and corroborates the data from the other study. So you keep saying you can't find any evidence of migration having any effect on employment and you now have two Europe-wide studies from the OECD showing that it does.
Are you kidding me mate? I have shown you data for +30 years!
> And as for the rest of your post...of course unemployment grew for all demographics during the recession.
Even though the crisis accentuated migration towards the strongest economies! Why aren't you going further than scratching the surface? I guess because it doesn't fit your narrative.
This is like discussing against a wall. You keep ignoring the evidence and then calling me a troll.
> Perhaps you're completely misunderstanding my point, because I never said that immigration caused unemployment, I said that it affected employment levels, i.e. the rates of employment between migrants and nationals, which again you can verify from the OECD study.
1) That's not what employment levels mean.
2) The nationals / foreign-born ratio is set to change, but as long as unemployment is low that's irrelevant.
> An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).
> which again verifies what I'm saying and corroborates the data from the other study. So you keep saying you can't find any evidence of migration having any effect on employment and you now have two Europe-wide studies from the OECD showing that it does.
I'll read more about that study, thanks. Yet again, that's not what the LSE study says; it'll be interesting to find the differences and how big is that impact.
Yet again, you paint that as undesirable, when it actually ends up growing the economy and getting everyone back to employment - arguably with better skillset. It's pure competition.
In other terms, if I let you sell your stuff in my country, why can't I sell my labour in yours? As long as we play with the same ruleset it's fair.
Anyway, yes, I must agree that unfortunately social welfare programs and now something like a basic income have a natural conflict with large-scale immigration. Like you I'm also worried about massive AI-powered automation of society. Or, rather, about how to distribute the production of goods and services in a highly-automated society. Maybe the end is nigh for capitalism as we know it? That said, cordoning off countries is certainly not the answer. Why not? Most of our problems are global in nature and therefore require a global "Earth-first" and "Earthlings-first" mindset.
I found myself writing a long-winded answer to you, and don't actually have time to finish it...
But basically, within a rich countries' free movement area, a citizens' basic income should be portable (you get it no matter where you live). So wealthy countries presumably shouldn't worry so much about people from within the area coming to their territories.
Likewise, automation will hit all of these regions simultaneously, give or take say five years. Effects should be the same everywhere.
The crucial thing seems to be that if much labor can be automated, then much of the gains of that automation should be redistributed in a way that can provide for people, at the same time in economic terms keeping up the demand for the automated and non-automated goods and services.
Maybe some kind of robot tax combined with a Land Value Tax (not property tax) could provide this citizens' income. (I'd personally add a greenhouse gas emissions tax, or even simple energy tax.) These could all go toward the citizens' income.
You could take that and go to Stuttgart or Sydney, get a job there, and still have your citizens' income arriving monthly in your account.
Hopefully some day, San Francisco, Stuttgart, Seoul and Sydney would have the same citizens' income, by merging their accounts into a supra-national agreement. At this point, collective action on a global level would be far easier.
What's more, though some people post-automation (well, not that it will ever stop, but at least after the next big wave), some people might be untrainable and become a useless class (as the brilliant Yuval Harari worries), many and probably most people will also be able to use AI and robots to generate income in new ways, or to just use basic human skills which robots won't have (like being a good waiter, cleaning things, selling to others, coaching people, and so on).
Certainly these kinds of ideas aren't the most likely that our societies will choose. But we clearly need ideas now...
For immigration from poorer regions, there is a whole other story, set of problems, and also opportunities. Personally, for immigration to Europe, I'd like to see an EU Migrants Bond. Municipalities that accepted refugees would get an amount of money, borrowed from the European Central Bank, EU sovereign bonds due in say thirty years, to spend on education and settlement of the refugees or migrants. Once the migrants became productive members of society, the increase in revenue (from the increase in economic activity that comes along with increase in population) would fund the repayment of the bonds.
If, in the meantime, automation had taken everything over, then that automation itself could become the source for the repayment of EU Migrant Bonds.
In this way, poor areas which needed employment might even compete for refugees and migrants whom they could educate and integrate. At least that's the idea.
OK, way too much, excuse the length... and also the inchoate nature of the ideas.
There are a lot of people that are fine with protectionism, but think it should only apply to the people like them. They think that those lower down on the ladder need to find new professions, even if they're in their 50's.
Dean Baker:
> Unfortunately, almost none of the people who pronounce themselves devotees of free trade actually do consistently advocate free trade policies. Rather they push selective protectionist policies, that have the effect of redistributing income to people like them, and call them "free trade."
...
> In the United States, the "free traders" in most cases also support the protectionist restrictions which severely limit the ability of foreign trained doctors and dentists and other high-end professionals from working in the United States. As a result of these protectionist measures doctors in the United States earn twice as much as their counterparts in other wealthy countries, costing us around $100 billion a year in higher health care costs.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-free-traders-do-not...
Everyone wants regulation for "others", free market for themselves.
H1B is to get workers without loans from places where diploma have been paid often by public taxes.
Without loans you are more competitive than a worker having to reimburse them.
H1BrainDrain also have a power of captation of publicly founded research that can be patented. (That's why young PhD are so interesting)
It also undermines the competitivity of countries which miss their engineer and have to pay twice the knowledge they founded.
It also ostensibly discourage the workers from unionizing since they have no way of controlling a pool of workers that can leverage the offer.
On the macroscopic level H1B is possible because there is a distortion of competition on the job market.
H1B is heavily biasing the capacity of negotiation on the work market in favour of the companies which uses them.
A market in which you can not win and must play is not a fair game.
I didn't get this point. Could you elaborate?
When you have the person actually having the bleeding edge knowledge, you can fund him or her to end the work and either publish it (prior act) or develop a usable result that can be patented.
But most of the effort, especially in countries with public education, has been supported by the taxes of the locals.
It is not USA the problem here. Europe and other place with public education are a bunch of bullied that are masochistic and love to be stolen.
When a company claims that it will only steal from foreign entities for your national interest, and never you because you are a special snowflake, it tend to lie.
A pathological thief will steal everyone as long as he is not stopped.
Google's Android biggest growth region is India. Why shouldn't then Indians work in Google? Maybe Google should move its headquarters from MV to Bangalore. Alphabet can remain in US.
Or another US company, lets say Pepsi, outsources its IT work to an Indian company, Infosys. And everyone in India is drinking Pepsi. Why is it wrong that IT work in Pepsi is done by Infosys? Should India ban Pepsi because Pepsi Inc. has more non-Indians than Indians?
I am not surprised that EU is actively fining US companies like Google and Apple, and China does not allow US companies in the first place. And if xenophobic and protectionist polices continue in US, then I am afraid that countries like India will have to do the same like EU or China.
https://qz.com/403654/google-is-doubling-its-headcount-in-hy...
Also, if you are software engineer have you ever wondered why your salary is close to $100k rather than, say $50k? Think about this. It might be due to the fact that even after being located in US, your company can sell its good and services all around the world.
You're clearly unaware of the vast number of development offices in India and China that even rather pedestrian businesses have opened.
Infosys was also under scrutiny for the same visa fraud that's mentioned in this same article. They settled out of court for $34 million while claiming they just wanted to avoid "prolonged litigation". But it's just a PR stunt - Infosys' visa fraud is rather well-known, colloquially.
While it's an Indian-based company, it is a multinational company that also operates within the United States. It's part of the biggest problem with H-1B visas, in that it hires almost entirely H-1B visa workers with tailored positions and then "hires" the staff out through consulting contracts. It does this to artificially suppress wages while taking a hefty profit. Tata, another Indian multinational company, does the same thing. (http://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-pro...). It's one thing to offshore work to a foreign company with contracts. That ship sailed decades ago, and, for all its faults in execution, it helped a lot of countries build their economies. Including India. But it's another to hire only offshore workers, bring them locally, and then replace local workers with those contracts. There's no justifiable reason if local people can do it - it's just labor and wage exploitation.
No one's got a problem with skilled workers migrating and taking jobs. Plenty of people move around the world for that. That mobility is a nice thing. But the H-1B is a system designed to facilitate this migration while protecting industry wages. Yet it's being abused by companies to artificially control wages with fake claims of labor shortage. So it deserves all the scrutiny we can muster. The program should stay. But it needs much more oversight.
> And if xenophobic and protectionist polices
It's not xenophobic. There's a huge Indian population locally in the US, as well, and many of them dislike H-1B abuse. Countries are supposed to protect their local labor pool and economy or they'll face some very difficult times. That said, there has to be a balance in tariffs and immigration laws for proper trade.
> Google's Android biggest growth region is India. Why shouldn't then Indians work in Google? Maybe Google should move its headquarters from MV to Bangalore. Alphabet can remain in US.
There's a strong claim for having local offices when companies do a large amount of business locally. Google and many other companies do that. Last year they announced that they're opening a second office in Bangalore. But they also sell to many other countries outside of India. A local office is one thing, but moving headquarters is another. India's economic impact isn't really enough to force the entire company to move. You're also ignoring the fact that countries specialize and then trade. Specialization and trade end up being cheaper in many ways than generalization.
It's perfectly normal for countries to have a particular product or service that they're known for. Trade agreements are generally structured so that those countries can protect foreign competition in local specialties, while enabling greater exports with lower tariffs for those specialties. It just so happens that Tata and Infosys grew out of this practice (where they exported labor services).
If anything, you're showing a strong nationalist agenda by claiming that only your country should be able to control foreign products while exporting local specialties, and that all foreign companies should use as much local resources as possible on foreign soil just because they profit from your market. It's not xenophobia, but it's certainly a lot closer to it than insisting that companies don't abuse visa programs to avoid paying local market wages.
You should probably take a step back and realize that this is a labor and economic issue, and not a cultural/racial issue.
Regarding the third paragraph, you say that "you're showing a strong nationalist agenda by claiming that only your country should be able to control foreign products". Please note that I mentioned this scenario to show how stupid is the line of thinking that global corporations should employ people of one country only. But then how many Asians should be employed by American countries who sell in Asia? I do not know. Based on users, revenue, country of origin of founders,... But it will be definitely more than the current miniscule H1B quota.
> The indictment charges that from 2010 to 2016, Dynasoft petitioned to place workers at Stanford University, Cisco and Brocade, but the employers had no intention of receiving the foreign workers named on the applications.
Should be noted that this is only the most brazen, harebrained scheme that has been uncovered and is being convicted. Not that its not important; but it may be more useful overall to go after the Big Co's that are doing everything technically legally but are still using H1B in ways it was not meant to be used.
Edit: Also just realized, when you say "Bay Area Tech Executives" it almost sounds like you're talking about Larry Page; but these "executives" were only officers of a shell company (seemingly) meant exclusively for committing visa fraud.
I'm sure that was the author's intention.
Even though I was a legitimate H1B worker, when the rules become strict to counter these fake H1Bs, I might also get affected, so I moved to Canada with Express Entry, which is based on skills.
Fake H1Bs cannot fake IELTS exam and Canada does thorough verification and police clearances. So that its Express Entry system is not abused like H1B system of US.
The actual people playing games like this are small time bodyshops. It'll be two cousins from Ahmedebad starting a shop in the US and hiring a bunch of locals via their personal network. They then attempt to socially isolate their employees, getting them set up in the local Guju community, so they don't talk to outsiders and discover their true market worth.
Edit: To clarify, I am commenting on the parent's remark that employers are preventing employees from finding this out.
"I'm clearly not Google material; I can barely get this J2EE app working", "I perceive that I am working uphill against racism in hiring managers", "I owe my sponsor for this job because they treated me fairly", "Literally no one in my friend group or family has a better job than this at my age", "I suppose this is what 'paying my dues' means and I have been aggressively cultivated to do so since before I could read", "My BATNA is deportation", "Well they are offering a 50% premium on a grad student stipend", etc, can do an awful lot of work.
I wonder if anything is at all different because of differences between Japanese and US culture with respect to discussing compensation, what is typically expected of workers, and so on.
(Not trying to poke holes in your story -- just genuinely curious!)
One of the people who told me about this (he was Malayalum) said he was uncomfortable when he came to the US because all the doctors were Bengali. They could speak to him in English or Hindi (both of which he knew), but he was only comfortable in Malayalum and another local language.
should be "He was a Malayali (speaker of Malayalam)" or "he was a Keralite" (native of the state of Kerala, where Malalayalam is the language).
The ones I know at the top end (and the $500k figure is low) are well aware of the value they bring to a corporation, and price accordingly.
I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics and about four years' experience as a programmer. What's my compensation range?
If you believe you should be making more than those salary ranges, you'll need to make a convincing case to the employer that you can deliver that extra value.
Meanwhile, whoever really (tries to get) an H1B because they really need their talent have a 1/3 chance of getting them
It's a complete joke http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/no-us-jobs-junior-infos...
If there aren't any demand for them then they wouldn't exist. So they're just the middle man for poorer companies to abuse.
SV tech companies, especially the larger ones, can afford to sponsor and go through these process.
> https://qz.com/899306/will-the-h-1b-be-worth-it-for-indian-i...
There are quite a few of them in the list.
Also the big SV tech companies have been caught colluding programmer wages in the past. It's not a far stretch to say h1b visa programs is something they wouldn't be interested in.
1) Body shopping/consultants who submit applications for work which doesn't exist (like the one in this news) and then later parade them as consultants to companies.
2) Outsourcing companies (like Tata and Infosys) who file valid job applications but have not done diligent search for US citizens/permanent residents thereby defeating a core tenet of the system. Primary motivation is to get work done on lower pay.
3) High tech and other companies which uses the visa as it is intended. Search for skilled job applicant for a while and then hire from a foreign country.
Now when the big corporations have IT openings, these managers wont publish the openings in job portals. They recruits these H1Bs from their own consultancies with a high billing rate, indirectly making profits. They also take a cut from the H1Bs salary on a monthly basis as a "fees" for brining H1Bs to US.
I've personally worked in a University Department that was tasked with marketing to international students and can say that this is entirely true. To the point that the school reserved a certain number of spots exclusively for out of state/international under the guise of diversity. In most schools it's not even where you think it is, recruitment and admissions had little to no control over us. We had a direct line to the top and were actually the ESL program, we gave students who graduated (the ESL program) a guaranteed spot in whichever college they wanted within our university, and we would take basically anyone who paid.
So if you wanted to short circuit the regular admissions process and are willing to pay you'd apply to our ESL program >> spend 4-6 months there >> pass through because $$$ >> enter your bachelor program of choice at a fairly high state school.
UK and European 3-year Bachelors are merely a means to an end, i.e. a 5-year university education that is comparable to doing a 4+1 year BS+MS, which is an option offered by many American universities. Very few European students apply straight to a Masters program in the US after completing their 3-year BS.
You can blame second zone universities that have become a visa mill for students ready to pay an expensive ticket to the US job market. And there are definitely issues with underprepared international students, especially regarding languages skills and the very different expectations compared to their home country. But there's no need to be demeaning.
1. There are many poor universities promising MS degrees in CS (here in California, there's Silicon Valley University, ITU etc). Not casting aspersions, but I doubt the quality of education from them.
2. Students can't get funding/scholarship. They tend to do odd jobs to make ends meet (many are illegal as students can't work outside of campus). They get in to severe debt.
3. Once they get a degree, clock is ticking to get a H1B. Note that recent OPT extensions give them breathing time. But nonetheless, they must get H1B to stay in country.
4. This is where one room consultancies come in to picture. They sponsor H1B and legally allow staying in US.
5. Students start working at lower end of pay spectrum. A friend of mine is willing to work for $20 - $25/hour (after commissions to consultancies) even after 10+ years of experience. The friend is in web application testing.
6. Sticking with consulting firms, it takes long time to break the "low income" cycle as projects are short lived, pay is low and job insecurity is high.
So, #3 and #4 are serving each other. Private universities gets income from students. US consulates in Asia give visas with, probably, tax dollars in mind. I even suspect private universities have some sort of lobbying that allow students from Asian (or other) countries to come for education.
So, my point is, this H1-B visa thing is quite deep and goes way back to universities and students coming for education.
H1-B seems to increase competition among workers, but in fact it does not, because H1-B workers are captive workers. They don't enjoy the same rights as their local counterparts. They can't leave the company and start applying for other jobs.
This leads to abuse from businesses.
Not shielded by layers of middle management, they see with their own eyes the way H-1B really works -- the lies they would have to tell to hire the low-priced labor.
They want to be honest and law-abiding, to be the kind of parents their children can respect.
But business has been unprofitable and is not improving, and tuition, mortgage, taxes are due at the end of the month.
How would any of us act, in their place? The choices are:
1. Hire H-1B, or
2. "The right thing" -- chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Remember this thread, and ones like it.
An immigration attorney for two information technology companies today
admitted that she submitted phony documents and obstructed a federal
investigation as part of a scheme that fraudulently obtained foreign
worker visas, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.
Sunila Dutt, 39, of Ashburn, Virginia, pleaded guilty before U.S.
District Judge Kevin McNulty in Newark federal court to an information
charging her with conspiracy to commit visa fraud and obstruct justice.
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/virginia-immigration-atto...
It seemed mostly comprehensible to begin with. I think a discussion of immigrant visas is actually a really poor place to insist on only hearing from people who speak perfect english.
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/34ncju6ac/california-north...
One of the two people indicted is the CEO of a staffing company ("Dynasoft Synergy" in Fremont); the other has worked at a couple companies including Cisco, not explicitly in an executive capacity.
If you think rumors spread fast in the states, wait till you see asymmetric information spread through India
The H1 system is completely gamed by both outsources and employers with legions of people at both places gaming the paperwork. It really needs a total overhaul.
I'm not against foreign workers, but we should be getting the best foreign workers, not just the cheapest ones we can find. A good system might be a reverse auction system where H1s are allotted first to the highest offer and goes down until allotments are filled. Then, perhaps employers would consider all the local graduates and reserve H1 spots for exceptional talent we need from overseas.