US burns through all high-skill visas for 2015 in less than a week
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
(I'm genuinely curious about this, as an American who has lived overseas--with the proper visas of course--for three years in the 1980s and for three years spanning the turn of the last century. I've only lived long-term in one other country, so I still could learn a lot more from all of you who participate here on HN about why people leave their country of birth, which is surely disruptive, to go to another country to live. What's the big deal about living in the United States?)
One thing is size. The US has 300+ million people, whereas my country only has a few million. All communities are smaller here; interesting things get here later or not at all (with bad localizations) because the market is too small. Things are tinier, quieter and get less traction.
Another thing is that there is something of a cultural identity crisis going on. We cannot match the enormous cultural influence of the US, and so a lot of our culture is American. If you've ever talked to someone from Northern Europe and wondered "why does s/he speak English so well?" it's not because of school. One half of our cultural identity is located on the other side of the Atlantic, and we keep in touch with it mostly through backlit screens.
The deluge of information and entertainment that has come from the US since it became a superpower has served as a really efficient marketing strategy. We're not terribly interested in moving to Oklahoma. We have been sold on New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other metropolises in the US, because that's what we read and hear about. These places are perhaps not better than Northern Europe to settle down and start a family in, but they certainly seem more exciting.
As an American, I've always been surprised when conversing with people from other countries considering their usage of English is not bad and is far better than those that are American natives. However, also as an American, I'm not surprised by the lack of skill in regards to the English language that is present amongst the population here (I'll use 'amongst' if I want, Chrome) due to the general disregard for the language (as if using the wrong form of your/you're is really that difficult or unimportant).
Edit: As is inevitable when one comments upon improper usage of a language, they tend to screw it up themselves. I have done just that. I will leave my mistake to commemorate it: "As an American, I've have always been..."
I don't think that applies to music genres. I live in Gloucester, England which is practically in the middle of Jungle country.
Each of these places only take a limited amount of immigrants each year. Some are more difficult based on the national language -- learning Danish isn't more difficult than English or French, but there are fewer learning resources to do so.
So, your best options for the greatest amount of opportunity is to learn English -- you have the UK, America, Canada, and Australia as potential landing spots. (This is, of course, not universal. Developing countries with French as a national language will prefer France, for example.)
So, the answer is that it's a way out.
On a permanent level, Australia has a permanent program of around 180,000 places a year in a country with only 22 million people.
But I don't understand why you'd want to leave, having lived in the US, UK, Australia, South Africa and NZ, the choice of NZ for ease of doing business and life is easy.
On Bloomberg I listened to an interview with the founder of Jetstar airlines, currently owned by Qantas, and who is now expanding a renewables business, who called Australia a resource exchange economy. Reading how cooks can earn $325K a year in gas projects, and noticing that the just signed Australia - Japan free trade agreement is mostly beef and agriproducts in exchange for TV's and other electronics, the sense initially is of lack of diversity in tech.
There's no way I could make my hardware project in Australia, not that I ever intended to. I haven't been able to find a single viable option for PCB manufacture. And if a company can provide them they're almost always farmed out to China in any case.
In the UK and the US, but also Europe it's just much richer in scope and size. There are some outstanding hardware facilities in the US. They're virtually non existent in Australia, at the right level of expertise and scale.
However, one big deterrent is proximity to the rest of the world. If you want to travel home to visit family, or due to an emergency - it's going to cost a lot of money and time.
Because of the distance, the logistics of physically moving there are also that much more difficult.
Then there are the mainstays - cost of living in/around major cities is quite high (though in the ICT sector earning potential is quite good), there are lots of scary critters, etc.
Many plumbers are also qualified in drainlaying, gasfitting and roofing as well. If you work with gas then lives depend on the quality of your work.
You also have to be physically fit, willing to get up early and sometimes deal with really unpleasant situations (e.g. wade through shit).
"Average" plumbers in AU might only get 60-80k (seriously, check the ads), which is actually not that great an ROI on the investment.
It's not until you specialise, become senior, go out on your own or start doing lots of overtime that you make money.
Anyway, I always thought the best would want to move to the US because it's there's top work, e.g.: there's no Tesla or SpaceX elsewhere and a top engineer would probably want to be doing this kind of work... Same with scientists that are working on ambitious research. But maybe I'm thinking about H1b as more of `top of the top, get your asses here` and it's more like `ye you're skilled enough you can try`, dunno.
In fact, literally the ENTIRE WORLD is your oyster, assuming you can reliably, regularly find power, wifi, and a team that'll work with you on your timezone's timeframe.
I'm a first-gen immigrant. My family originally moved because of rampant pollution due to unrestrained industrialization, as well as geopolitical risks (having air/bomb raid drills in school isn't really that fun). Telecommuting doesn't really fix these.
Suffice it to say, emigration/immigration is a Big Deal for the people who do it, and for the most part it isn't being done simply because the jobs are better. There are usually far more fundamental concerns behind the decision, a better economy is just one factor out of many.
So, this is about what the parent said.
Am I substantially missing something?
In US, if - and that's a big if - you're lucky enough to win H-1b early April, you may start working early October. Is there anything as fast with Canada? Without employer agreeing to hire you even though you don't have a working visa - i.e., you have to apply for one?
You need to pull your eyes out of your ass. The countries you mention are far from being superior; perhaps "good enough", but frankly nothing too fancy. You need to visit Hong Kong or Singapore to see how highly qualified immigrants live there like kings.
Japan has serious environmental problems and their government does not stand up to the transparency one would love their government to comply with [1]. They are rolling into huge economical depression too.
Australia. Have you ever been there? Spend couple months you will be surprise how alienated you will feel. My friends live there for 15-20 years and they will never be a part of the community. They will always feel like outsiders; mostly recognized by their accent. Australians divide themselves among those who were born here, and all outsiders who came to steal jobs. Its the mentality. It wont change. Australia has their own environmental problems too and politics & taxation goes through the roof (viva la Queen that fixes everything through more taxes).
European Union is on a brink of collapse; some countries are openly discussing living EU. Its rotten to its core by very well hidden corruption [2]; Ukraine situation that helps Russia shows their real aspirations does not help either.
Canada, they are still under Queen that can suspend the parliment anytime she wants to [3].
Then we come to US. I think its a matter of "the grass that is greener on the other side". I mean, how many of those folks applying for visa know anything about US more than from movies about "land of the free home of the brave?". Politics? How many know who Nancy Pelosy or Henry Reid are? For all they know America has this good man named Obama who gave everyone free healthcare so it can't get better than that. Did they hear about Justina Pelletier, Cliven Bundy, Kelly Thomas or hundred of thousands other cases of governmental abuse?
[1] http://enenews.com/japan-times-sources-reveal-fukushima-radi...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10614864...
[3] http://stevescomments.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/the-queen-of-...
This is inappropriate language for Hacker News. Please don't address another user this way, regardless of how wrong you think they are.
You lambast Japan for a lack of government transparency just as you finish extolling the virtues of Hong Kong and Singapore. You also conveniently fail to mention the salary required to live "like a king" in either of those two locations. Singapore ain't cheap. In fact, it's the world's most expensive city by several measures [1].
H1-B is pretty broad, and most applicants are certainly not eligible for mid six figure salaries in the finance hubs of Asia. "Highly qualified" for the purposes of this discussion does _not_ necessarily mean rolling in the dough.
Lastly and most comically : Canada's parliament being desolved by the Queen? That's patently absurd.
It would be great if we had a way to correct all false statements on Hacker News, but we don't. That shouldn't prevent us from addressing the corrosion of the discourse by garden-variety incivility. Pulling out those weeds is one of the big things we all can do to make HN more conducive to truth-seeking discussion in the first place.
I'd say it's a pretty small portion of the planet that has a decent internet connection, but the detail is how you define "decent".
Once you are here, and have a degree, there are opportunities here that are not there back home and hence the interest in working visas.
Consultancies are another catalyst - in cases where the candidates do not manage to get a job right out of school, consultancies act as a bridge where they file immigrant visas for the candidates and then help them find companies that are in need of their skills.
I'm not saying that the US is not a popular choice for people wanting to immigrate, but I think that it is more that there is a good quality of life to be had, with the added bonus of being an English speaking country (which is the most popular choice as a 2nd language learn).
Second but not least, because ARgentina grows so much on outsourcing contracts, the quality of the job to do is poor and uncommitted. Product management in Argentina is almost non-existent. This means that the most likely job you will get is contracting-"do as the guy that pay exactly wants even if you know for a fact that there are better ways to do it" work.
So, more pay + more interesting work is enticing enough. Also, having worked in the US gives you a halo if you come back.
Also, you have the possibility to learn about bleeding edge tech in situ.
English as the primary language (great learning resources available for it all across the globe).
Real economic mobility - you can really make it big if you're smart, persevering and slightly lucky. Who you know matters to a certain extent in all countries, but the significance of that factor is less in the US as compared to the other countries, in my opinion (others may disagree, of course).
I moved from Sweden to the United Kingdom to attend university for similar reasons. The university culture is different (much better) here, and there is more of a hub factor to the campuses, which offers many advantages socially and otherwise.
I moved because University and because of the better living/work conditions.
However, if I had the chance I would probably move to the US. Maybe CA, but I am still on the fence. The things stopping me are the super expensive health care, work-life balance and higher crime rates.
For instance, a programmer in Spain makes about a third as he would in the midwest, with the same cost of living. He'd also be able to find a job by having skills that fit what companies need, instead of being about being a good friend of the CTO's nephew.
And that's a developed country in the EU. Imagine the same thing, in one of those places that have immigrants that move to Spain.
Also, multi-culturalism seems to be growing organically here in the U.S rather than being shoved down people's throats like in Europe. This leads to fewer instances of racism and a more accepting climate where every one has some degree of mutual respect. I don't think that's the case in Western Europe where from what I hear, refugees are being brought in huge numbers angering the local population.
Last year, i visited Switzerland and Austria and was called nigger multiple times by random passers on bicycles whilst walking (and I'm not even black and pretty fair for an Indian guy). Fuck that shit.
Of course, if you're an international trailblazing software-engineering guru, yeah, you'll get fantastic opportunities pretty much anywhere. However, even fairly low-level IT work in the US can feed a new family (depending on your geography, of course), which is not the case everywhere in the world. And with recruiters banging down peoples' doors throwing jobs in peoples' faces, it's no wonder foreigners want to stay in the US.
So, I'm highly critical of USgov but USA, with all its alleged faults, is still considered the "Land of opportunity" by a lot of people. If you have tech-skills and you need a country where the internet doesn't cost you a kidney-per-month(and barely works), electricity is reliably provided during core working hours; combined with the perception that Bay Area / Silicon Valley tech scene is where the money & smart people are at.... there you have it.
That is a broad question.
Probably because unlike most other countries, we're a nation of immigrants, and while our policies may not be perfect, we have empathy for people who want to move here, and work hard for a better life.
The Australian E3 visa has not been filled. If you need skilled engineers think of seeing if you can recruit some Australians.
As a European who spent his last 3 summers in the US, and now participating in H1B lottery, my motivation is pretty simple: money, and also prestige stemming from working for a well-recognized tech company in the core of SV that will follow me when I get back my home country, or immigrate to some country I find more desirable.
Spending few months in Bay Area and in Seattle made me pretty disillusioned about the whole "land of the free" thing, about equality and justice for all. It also made me concerned about my own personal safety, something I never ever felt back home.
But for the salary, I find that Canada is in almost every way superior for immigration purposes, not to mention Germany, Switzerland, Denmark or Sweden.
1. stability of the political system 2. percentage of large companies that originate (i.e. google, facebook, vmware, etc) 3. open opportunities with respect to social class
People are dying, literally drowning in the Mediterranean, to get into Europe. As I know, people still apply to work in Qatar even as they engage in work practices that well be "nothing less than murder"in the process of constructing their World Cup stadiums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup#Migrant_wor...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea...
The list contains the UK and France, but not Germany or the Netherlands.
You don't have to look very hard to see that the US is still very attractive for migration: about 1 million people, legal, permanent, per year for almost 3 decades[1] (and 1.5MM "temporary"). For comparison, Germany had about 800k in 2011, France 150k, UK 500k.
[1]http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigrat...
I always found Table 6 to be the most interesting, particularly in debates about immigration — I have a green card as a 9 year long EB3 process (Employment Based, 3rd class - the CIS doesn't value Philosophy degrees as highly as engineering degrees!)
To take the last year for which data are published, 2011
A partial breakdown of new Permanent Resident status issued—informally “green card”
Family sponsored 206,585
Immediate relatives of citizens 209,984
Employment based 14,955
In round numbers for every green card issued on basis of employment, 28 are issued to family members of citizens. This is pretty much the inverse of popular understanding of immigration.There are people that don't understand that the US immigration system is primarily family-based? I think lots of people think the motivation for immigration is largely economic (and that's also true, even for the family-based visas), but I don't recall encountering many people that had any mental model of the immigration system that didn't know that being allowed to immigrate legally was largely through family-based classes. Certainly, much of the public political drama centers around that fact (e.g., the whole "anchor babies" thing.)
(Although "Family sponsored" is not, as you present it, necessarily family-of-citizen -- the family-sponsored grouping includes visa classes for family members of Permanent Residents as well.)
Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of fairness and, usually, "the line." But the metaphor is a bad one; instead of "the line," it might be better to think of the system as multiple, separate lines that are of varying distances from the destination. And honestly, some of those lines have some nasty obstacles laid out in front of them.
I don't see any real evidence that's true, but, maybe it is.
> Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of fairness and, usually, "the line." But the metaphor is a bad one;
It's not really a metaphor at all, its a fairly literal description of the family-sponsored visa system which dominates immigration. At least as it pertains to the countries where immigration demand exceeds per-country quota, where qualified immigrants are literally on a wait list (in some cases one that will take a decade or more to reach them).
And I suspect it dominates the discussion specifically because the family-based part of the immigration system is the one most people know the most about.
> it might be better to think of the system as multiple, separate lines that are of varying distances from the destination.
Well, that would be even a more literal description of the family-sponsored system, since each category of visa has its own quota and queue.
Most of the rest of the immigration system doesn't really consist of lines...
> People are dying, literally drowning in the Mediterranean, to get into Europe.
Right. Don't you think that's an indication of proximity rather than attractiveness? (some) People from Africa might be poor and are dying to go some place else, but they're not stupid. They understand crossing the Mediterranean is easier than crossing the Atlantic...
All that means is that there are jobs in Europe and Qatar.
Unrestricted Jus soli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Unrestricted_jus_soli)
Because the H1-B visa employee is legally bound to the job, he becomes more attractive than hiring a US citizen, (assuming equal salary and qualification).
The fact that the green card process resets if the employee switches jobs is crazy. That really does make it an "indentured servant slave visa".
Also, H1-B visas get 50%-150%+ raises when they get their green card, which proves that the H1-B visa suppresses wages.
Anyhow, this article is great:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
One of the similarities that stuck out to me:
Most white immigrants arrived in Colonial America as indentured servants, usually as young men and women from Britain or Germany, under the age of 21. Typically, the father of a teenager would sign the legal papers, and work out an arrangement with a ship captain, who would not charge the father any money.[10] The captain would transport the indentured servants to the American colonies, and sell their legal papers to someone who needed workers. At the end of the indenture, the young person was given a new suit of clothes and was free to leave. Many immediately set out to begin their own farms, while others used their newly acquired skills to pursue a trade.
The question of legality would come down to whether it's voluntary or involuntary servitude. But as a practical matter, I think it would be good for all people (not companies) if we found a more lenient path to citizenship as it wouldn't put as much downward pressure on salaries and wouldn't make H1-Bs preferable over others, all else being equal.
The green card process for a H1-B is particularly annoying and restrictive though, as is the arbitrary time limit.
Not sure what you mean by "the H1-B visa employee is legally bound to the job". Sure, your company's name is printed on your visa but it is excessively easy to transfer to a new employer.
This is less of a problem for people from non-Indian and non-Chinese backgrounds, since the wait time is reasonably short. The priority dates for Indians and Chinese though make it such that once your green card is started you're stuck for literally years.
Labor certification and I-140 processing used to be painfully slow. I waited 3.5 years just for my labor certification. However, the new PERM process is much quicker, so you'd probably only have to wait 1 or 2 years to be eligible for portability.
I know a few H1-B visa holders who were and I cannot imagine the stress they went through. Fortunately they all found jobs in time, although when you've got a time limit, you end up making some compromises.
Bringing a foreign employee over is incredibly expensive. The reason companies do it isn't to get a grateful slave that will do anything to hold his job and rise ahead. They do it because a shortage of skilled workers locally, and incredible competition from other companies.
Not to mention all the hassle and uncertainty of interviewing someone, and then not knowing for months or even years if they can come over and start working.
As someone that works for a company that hires a LOT internationally, trust me, we'd much rather hire locally. But our needs are greater than can be found in one place, so we have to broaden our reach.
I've been in this industry for nearly 20 years. There is no shortage. There IS A HUGE SHORTAGE of engineers willing to work for the pay and conditions that an H1B will work for though.
H1B has lot of restrictions most idiotic being that the spouce has to sit idle. That is idiotic.
Last year, apparently 40,000 of the 85,000 available visas went to outsourcing companies, and one outsourcing company, Cognizant, got 9,000 visas!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/04/03/176134...
At my last job, we tried to get an H1 for just one person, and failed in the lottery!
I feel there would be much less abuse of the H1 if each company could receive only say 100 visas a year max, or a % of their US workforce size max, or something.
Recently Infosys was fined 35 million USD for visa fraud, that was just the tip of the ice berg http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230452750...
The end result is the same: the most valuable workers are let in. It'd also have a small, but nice benefit: a voluntary revenue stream for the US to spend on whatever it would like (perhaps improved education and training for citizens).
Never really got around finishing it and pushing it out tough, although I am curious to see what the feedback is on it.
On other hand, I would love to have a easier way to start a business in US and a Visa program that helps US economy.
DISCLAIMER: I run a services startup in Bangalore.
I believe that it is a very unhealthy model that they have.
Or why the state department does look at what skills are actually needed where ... or why those who get the visas remain utterly dependent on the companies that got them the visas, thus lower wages in a way an "ordinary market" etc?
-- Wow, I can think of a reason. I think of "a million reasons", all with the face of a founding father.
Yeah, if seriously high-skilled folks were let into the US, no questions asked and then weren't dependent on only company X, then they actually wouldn't be putting pressure on wages of existing geeks because they would have their own legitimate demands. But couldn't have that.
H1 is supposed to be for high skill individuals, the actual people getting it are really like the absolute worst mid level corporate sycophants. The real high skill individuals are likely working at start ups, bootstrapping, or successfully running their own start ups. Who will never get Visas.
There are also other H1 candidates like doctors, Many of whom I think justifiable deserve it.
Either way the Indian start up ecosystem is growing wildly due to these Visa restrictions. Most people who would have likely started in San Francisco given a chance are starting up here now.
Also take a look at average salaries for true technology companies and outsourcing companies.
Perhaps there should be a minimal salary floor. Or perhaps some sort of auction based on salary instead of a lottery.
i typically think of visas as fulfilling unmet hiring needs for domestic US firms - like Facebook! - but instead see they are largely squirreled away by firms whose primary function is overseas labor cost arbitrage.
I would be interested to hear informed opinions as to why so many visas go to these firms. i thought the stated objective is to help american firms meet their hiring needs where the local work force is deficient.
instead, it seems like all the demand is corralled into a few firms which do the dirty work for everyone else. if your primary purpose is outsourcing, how can you plausibly claim to be searching for qualified workers inside the US, and thus deserving of access to these visas?
The most valuable employees to the country are those that are hired to work on something that scales that can then be sold to other countries. Consultancy is a non-scaleable business model, which does nothing to helping the US' balance of payments. Improving the balance of payments should be the primary deciding factor when determining if an application is valid.
Second, although consultants typically make more than other software engineers, it still suppresses wages for all software consultants. The pay for software consultants in the US would be much higher without bringing in immigrants to do that work.
Personally, I don't want to reduce the number of highly skilled immigrants that come to this country. I would love to see it increase a lot more. But I don't think it benefits the United States economy and the average American citizen when this immigrant labor is focused on non-scalable activities where the labor needed is likely to be highly fungible. That only serves to increase the bottom line of the shareholders of such companies at the expense of suppressing wages for similar professionals working in the US. That's net-negative for the country, and a subsidy for those shareholders. Every one of those H1-B visas should be decided on the likely value that immigrant can bring to the US economy and not the value that immigrant provides to the shareholders of a consultancy.
IBM getting 5 more generalist software engineers is far less valuable to the US economy than 5 engineers that are specialists in some new emerging technology such as renewable energy. The decision process for granting H1-Bs should be similar to the decision process for making an investment in a startup. You invest in things that can grow.
FWIW, You might think I'm a red-blooded anti-immigration American, but I'm actually an immigrant software engineer living in the US.
This is a false way of framing things on many levels. First, as Norm Matloff has extensively documented, they are not all "highly skilled and educated people". Secondly, they can be given green cards and other such things, why is this specific visa necessary?
Also, if there's a shortage of talent, then the Silicon Valley CEO's can put an end to things like their conspiracy to drive down tech wages that is playing out in the courts, which is something that would obviously depress the number of engineers applying for jobs. Instead of the federal government cutting loans and grants to college students, they could expand them if they want more engineers.
And if there is some humanitarian concern for immigrants, there are waiting applicants from Africa who have far more of a humanitarian need to get into the USA then an Indian IIT graduate.
You can't expect the Silicon Valley ~~CEO~~ Royalty to be bothered with something as plebeian as the free market. Much easier to get some programming serf imported to do the job and then throw them off the land once they aren't needed anymore.
I'm not from IIT.
But I guess it was Tom Friedman who said, It is a no brainer for the US to take people from IIT. Because you really have like the extreme best of India landing at US doorstep and practically begging to give them opportunities, to make US awesome.
Why would any country want to not have that kind of people?
They are not.
/end of story. All other propaganda and testimony by these companies that say otherwise is bullshit.
Further, I've seen many dozens of "replacements" come in in the form of H1Bs. These were literally DIRECT replacements. They were inexperienced and WORSE at the job.
This is no longer anecdotal. This is happening NOW. All over this country in the IBMs, Microsofts, etc.
It does not take a genius to see what is going on.
Normal path: H1B -> Green Card -> 5 yr waiting -> Citizenship
You will not get GC directly, unless: (a) Apply for GC lottery (b) Marry US citizen (c) Claim refugee status (d) Your US citizen relatives ask for it and you wait 8+ years to get it
For people in the same boat: I think it's easier to cope with this if you take the view that you have to be lucky to get the visa, not unlucky not to. No one complains of ill-luck when they buy a lottery ticket and don't win millions. Positivity folks! :)
A lot of American problems seem to be around the thinking that there is some kind "fixed" number of jobs, misery, poverty, disease etc.
A lot of welfare systems here seems to assume that there is a fixed number of single mothers, disabled etc. without acknowledging the fact that the more incentives you give to them more people will try to get into that category. For example more dole you give to disabled I would assume more people would try to get themselves into disabled bucket than in healthy.
Similarly the H1B cap seems to have an assumption that there are some fixed number of STEM jobs out there and if Indians fill it up, somehow the Americans will not get it. I would assume a higher concentration of Engineers in USA would only lead to more innovation, more engineers trying to earn more money by being far more creative and so on.
In India a typical outsourcing giant pays somewhere between $5K to $10k per year to new engineers. The only way I could break such low pay was by getting a master degree, being an excellent coder and joining a more tech focused company in Silicon Valley. After reaching Silicon Valley I realized the tech giant I was working for did not pay me enough. So I changed the job and joined a start-up which eventually did far well making me richer.
Also the Democrats which beat their chest in the name of poor are actually those who treat poor the way a Dog treats a lampost. The lampost helps the Dog navigates but only after it is soaked in his pee.
More engineers would mean cheaper engineering services which means more money saved for rest of the non-engineering Americans which a overwhelmingly high population. By putting an artificial cap on H1B American government is forcing the poor American citizens shell out more money.
Take Cognizant Technology solutions for example. I know a friend who works for the company. They are a US company (NJ based) but the majority of their life-sciences projects are outsourced to India office. They pay my friend one-thirds of what they charge the client for him in the contract. Him and about 5 other people who work here for the client, send work off-shore to India office to about 50 people. This model of outsourcing the majority work to India suits the client because the total costs about one-tenth of what they'd actually pay if everyone of those employees was hired here, in the US.
Not only is this model hurting jobs in the US, it is bad for the employees here well. For my friend, he has to work during the day, and then spend most of the night delegating tasks off-shore. He practically sleeps only over the weekend.
This might be a one-off example with this specific client only for Cognizant but I am aware that the profits from pay-scales are company-wide.
Generally, it takes 2-4 weeks to get one from start to finish if you have a good immigration lawyer.
This sort of visa should not be exclusive to Australia. As an Aussie, I get the benefit from it but at the same time, I feel everyone should have access to it. I hope visa reform comes soon!
Anyone struggling to hire, big or small, should market to Australians. Its very cheap to fly out and interview a heap of smart candidates who would love to work for startups in the Bay Area.
Indeed. You gave them a base from which to spy on Asia and Oceania. Should have negotiated visa-free entry for that alone.
The agency working on my application specifically timed it so that my application was submitted on April 1st, when the applications initially opened, instead of in November when I submitted the paperwork. If all agencies time applications this way, then the reason that all applications were exhausted within a week is because the entire year's applicants queued up until their requests were submitted this week.
This does not detract from the fact that there are too few visas granted, however, the situation isn't quite as insane as you would expect from reading this article.
I think high skilled is a term that we coders are happy to apply to themselves, but really folks we are not compared to a genuine elite. The future will be invented by a very small number of brilliant people - the rest if us are just here to fill in the gaps behind them.
let it go, start building a remote-working-orientated company and hire people wherever they live. Stop worrying about the country's tax take.
I never heard anyone say that Google Zurich (a terrible location, work-visa-wise) or Sidney didn't fit the bill. Remote work appears to be common practice — a third of offers consider it, and cools start-ups advertise not having an office.
All the US gets is less tax revenue.
Considering that Americans seem to have little difficulty affording computers and software, yet continue to bankrupted by health care costs, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to give those 85k visas to cheap doctors from overseas to drive down medical costs, instead of giving them to cheap foreign programmers to drive down the wages of American developers?
Deleted comment
I don't know if they're part of the same problem or the same problem expressing itself in different ways, but I have a hard time calling this coincidence.
How does opening up more visas help this? It is not about helping the people of America. It is about corporations getting richer. There are plenty of people already here to fill tech jobs.
So if we gave them all Visas - we'd be good for less than two weeks?
Sounds like a bigger problem here.
On a related note, how many highly skilled and educated people live here already who are currently unemployed?
Two observations.
* Immigrants will go to where the work is. They will live almost anywhere the work is, they are moving already so it is easier than for someone who has roots somewhere.
* Immigrants will work harder and for less money. This is like starting a new job x10. Typically starting a new job - people work their tails off (for the first year or two at least). Think about that plus moving half way around the world just for personal achievement. Imagine the motivation that would give you. You would want to prove yourself, get permanent status, make a lot of money to bring family here ETC. And the money? think about it. Would you take less money for a huge opportunity in life?
Here is the thing though. Bringing in skilled immigrants is great for greedy capitalism, you get talent, hard work, and for cheap. The problem is - we are just working around a growing problem. What about the people who already live here. Not just the adults, but the kids who will be in high school and college in a few years. Why can't they be the ones who fill these jobs?
Bringing in immigrants is a short term moneymaker for corporations. Longer term, and in a couple of generations, these immigrants grand kids will be the ones who don't have a job. Let's put more focus on that aspect rather than always rallying behind opening the floodgates without properly considering the ramifications.
One could say that Einstein changed fate such that a certain person was never even born who would have surpassed his achievements. This is nonsense and illogical.
In the United States, nine percent of computer science graduates are unemployed, and 14.7 percent of those who hold degrees in information systems have no job. Graduates with degrees in STEM - science, technology, engineering and medicine - are facing record joblessness, with unemployment at more than twice pre-recession levels. The job market for law degree holders continues to erode, with only 55 percent of 2011 law graduates in full-time jobs.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/surviving-p...
It is very sad that nine percent of computer science graduates are unemployed. Why is that? Why are they not fulfilling the already critical need for skilled IT workers? A clue - it's not because the immigrants are taking all there jobs.
Love the quote BTW - from and immigrant news service.
"Not everybody took part in the no-hire agreement: last week, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg said the social network rebuffed Google's approaches."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/30/tech_giants_fail_to_...
Is the same guy pushing for visas to drive down wages:
"Fwd.us, a group founded in part by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, has pushed for immigration reform. Joe Green, another Fwd.us founder, lambasted current law regarding the cap structure of high-skill visas in an email to TechCrunch, calling the current set of regulations “dysfunctional.” "
I guess being a prick knows no bounds.