Comment by honestduane | Hacker News Reader

Comment by honestduane | Hacker News Reader

There's been a lot of debate around Amazon's hiring practices, particularly given the conflicting data and statements from the company. A core issue seems to be that Amazon has alienated a significant portion of its domestic engineering talent pool. Many experienced engineers have left, and others seem unwilling to return, even when offered higher-level roles. I personally was an L7 engineer and turned down a boomerang offer.

In response, Amazon appears to be increasingly turning to H-1B workers - especially from countries where the company’s reputation hasn't soured as much.

Example: https://h1bgrader.com/h1b-sponsors/amazon-dot-com-services-l...

While these engineers may be less experienced, they're often more willing to accept lower compensation, due in part to discrepancies in wage data reported by the Department of Labor. For example, the BLS wage data, which sets a $115k cap for certain wage codes, has led to a misalignment in what’s considered a "fair wage" enabling companies like Amazon to pay these workers below actual market rates.

This reliance on overseas talent seems to be more than just a cost-saving measure; it also reflects Amazon's ongoing struggle with high turnover among its U.S. engineering staff. The company’s well-documented high attrition rates, as highlighted in reports like this one from Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2022/10/24/amazon-r... - shed light on the challenges Amazon faces in retaining domestic engineers.

The LinkedIn data also supports this trend.

Candidly, it seems that Amazon has burned too many bridges with U.S.-based engineers, forcing the company to increasingly rely on a less experienced labor pool from abroad in order to maintain its operations, despite being an American based, publicly traded company.

From my understanding, the last budget bill passed (called the big beautiful bill by some) had changes to section 174. Specifically that software R&D could once again be immediately fully expensed in the year incurred rather than amortized over several years SO LONG AS its a US based expense. Non US based R&D expenses still need to be amortized, and over an ugly 15 year period.

What significant changes to section 174 were made in the big beautiful bill?

Key Changes The bill created a new Section 174A that restores immediate deductibility for domestic research and experimental (R&E) expenditures, largely reversing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requirement that had forced companies to capitalize and amortize all R&E expenses starting in 2022.

Domestic vs. Foreign Treatment:

Starting with tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, businesses may immediately deduct domestic R&E expenditures in the year they are paid or incurred

Foreign R&E expenditures must continue to be capitalized and amortized over 15 years under the original Section 174

Retroactive Relief Options:

The new rules permit taxpayers to deduct previously capitalized and unamortized domestic R&E expenditures over a one- or two-year period, and small businesses may opt to apply new Section 174A going back to 2022 and file amended returns. Eligible small business taxpayers (generally those with average annual gross receipts during the preceding three years not exceeding $31 million) can retroactively expense R&E expenditures for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, by filing amended returns.

Alternative Treatment: Taxpayers may still elect to capitalize and amortize domestic R&E expenditures over a period of not less than 60 months, or elect to amortize them over a 10-year period.

This represents a major win for businesses conducting research and development, as the 2022-2024 capitalization requirement had created significant tax burdens and compliance complexity.

I'm not so sure.. many years of capitalized R&D expenses would eventually compound such that you would find a steady state. And in general all we're talking about here is whether or not a company is profitable and hence is taxed.. most of these companies make sure to spend almost all of what they make to avoid being profitable

It's not even H1Bs and not just Amazon. Amazon and most Big Tech companies have been shifting jobs overseas (via hiring freezes in the US and open headcount in India) for almost 4 years now.

In case you don’t mind sharing: What happened that soured relationships between Amazon and domestic engineers?

what happens to that strategy now that h1bs are being targeted by the current administration?

I assume they will just open more offices overseas?

They wait and the next administration reverses course.

The link you posted is broken.

But I can tell you with fair certainty that Amazon's high turnover rate is NOT happening in their engineering departments, though. It's happening in their retail or business departments.

I'm kind of horrified by the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric in engineering circles online and how normalized it's becoming. (Especially troubling how much Indians in particular are drawing ire). Is it really that much different if Amazon brings in a foreign worker to Seattle vs someone from Mississippi? Immigration restrictions are arbitrary and unfair, and in my mind any carveouts for them are a good thing.

> Is it really that much different if Amazon brings in a foreign worker to Seattle vs someone from Mississippi?

in what way do you mean different? i would say it is wildly different

If you're worried about from poorer areas coming in and taking our jobs, how much distinction is there really whether they come from a poorer state or a poorer country?

America has free and open trade within its borders. Nobody seems to mind that there are no visa restrictions on someone from Mississippi taking a job in California.

The distinction we make between a foreigner coming to take a job and a domestic worker taking a job is (with some particular exceptions) is largely a mental construct.

The distinction is that in America, we are obligated to take care of Americans.

If people immigrate to America, the arrangement should be mutually beneficial.

We are not, and should not be, the self-appointed saviors of the world.

> We are not [...] saviors of the world.

This is definitely true. You are getting cheap educated labor, boosting your country's economy and crippling competition. Self interest, not savior behavior.

Now, that's irrelevant to the argument you are replying, that shows the holes in the wage depression argument.

hiring a domestic worker immediately reduces social burden on the rest of the country who should be supporting the domestic worker if they can't find work

hiring a foreign worker does not immediately reduce social burden on the country with the job

ignoring the absurdness of this argument, it's actually a better deal for some workers to stay in poorer areas of the US because there are now similar job opportunities nationwide while those areas have a lower cost of living. can't find the study rn bc i'm busy but it came out a few years ago i think. used to be a worker from the south would move to NYC and it would drastically change their financial situation, but now it's not the case anymore.

Link updated.

The links I have added above all show that Engineers are in fact impacted by this.

???

The links you have shared are relating to the Engadget leaks - which is specifically about turnover among warehouse workers.

Amazon is not using H1B workers to fill these positions.

You must be confused.

If you look again you'll find another link to the H-1B data, And there are many types of engineering titles listed there.

> I'm kind of horrified by the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric in engineering circles online and how normalized it's becoming

Agree, and it came on pretty suddenly as well, which is particularly horrifying. To me it shows how fragile civility and safety is. I see this type of sentiment showing up in the comment sections of YouTube videos on tech or financial topics recently. I think the reality is when people feel their own way of life and chance at becoming rich is at risk, they will search for whatever external risk they can eliminate. And increased competition (from foreign talent) is one such risk.

If it were just that, it would be one thing. But alongside the protectionism, I am seeing a lot of outright racist comments accompanying this backlash against immigrant labor. Like comments that play up stereotypes or worse. As a mild example, I see people saying things like “They can’t fix their own country so they’re coming to ruin ours” or “We don’t need more call center scammers”.

> Immigration restrictions are arbitrary and unfair, and in my mind any carveouts for them are a good thing.

Given how many CS grads in US colleges are struggling to find a job these days, I disagree.

If there is demand beyond what local supply can provide, sure. That may have been the case 10 years ago, but it's not the case today.

> But I can tell you with fair certainty that Amazon's high turnover rate is NOT happening in their engineering departments, though.

Maybe you mean there hasn't been any change in their turnover recently, but the numbers (not to mention, the horror stories) I heard more than a decade ago from then-current and ex-AMZN folks were already pretty bad.

As an illustrative example, IIRC the average tenure is 21 months, which is just 3 months short of their first big RSU chunk (15%?) vesting. That is, people could not bear to stay another 3 months to get a big chunk of equity that they'd worked for the past 21 months.

If people recall that NY Times article about Amazon culture, I had already heard examples of everything in that article and more from people who had left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com