There has been a lot of talk about how the global economy impacts the U.S. here at home, whether it is of benefit to us or not. I find this essay to be pretty convincing evidence that, at least as it pertains to programming, it is the case that H1-B visas are good for no one but the bottom line of the companies that use them, edit: and even that, quite possibly, of a temporary nature.
posted
I'm kinda surprised there isn't a bigger stink about this, since from what I can tell, there's a surplus of native-born programmers in the US, not a shortage.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a surplus, but companies follow the maxim "maximum profit, minimum cost" or, more precisely, "maximize profit, minimize cost" but quite often, they are one and the same.
And hiring local programmers is more expensive than hiring people abroad and bringing them in.
It's really no different than construction companies hiring "day labor" or other companies outsourcing support services abroad.
posted
jeniwren -- part of the problem is the large number of bad "programmers" (just because its on the resume . . .) combined with the lack of an effective way for many people to judge a programmer's skills, even another programmer (though most companies don't even get that far).
Nobody's come up with decent metrics for judging IT projects, much less how effectual the people involved are.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu raises another point - which tends to lead to a certain stereotype regarding programmers from abroad.
At least if they're bad, they can be dismissed rather easily.
Have you tried firing a full time local employee lately? It's not an easy thing to do - most companies try to avoid it if at all possible.
My buddy works at a tax firm - I have seen first hand their hiring and firing practices. I couldn't tell you what it takes to actually be fired - apparently lying about your time sheet, being suspected of stealing checks, being openly rude, bordering on abusive to senior managers and executives doesn't qualify at this place.
posted
fugu, I agree with that 100%. I've worked with quite a few of them, and even the guys who have been doing this forever...some of them are just awful. Promising starts, seem like they'd be a good fit, but lordy me, after a few weeks, it gets really apparent what a disaster they actually are. I could tell you some stories.
Now, though, all of our programmers are incredible. They are really amazing. You say what needs to happen...they might gripe about it, but when they come out of their hole, they bring with them a work of art. It's really something to see.
TMedina, the best thing that could have ever happened to us was rapid and extreme downsizing. There isn't any room at all for dead weight.('Course, I say that as one of the ones that survived, but still...I've been on the other end as one of the ones laid off (several times, actually), and I'd still say that having layoffs is usually the best way to get rid of a company's chaff.)
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but in a layoff you tend to risk losing the good with the bad because you have to cut numbers, not specific dead weight.
Since my buddy's company has been bought, he and his manager are due for the first round of culling - mind you, half of that I agree with. The other half, not so much.
posted
What's cuter is that Dubya and the Republican Congressional leadership has proposed similar indentured servitude to replace unskilled workers, both American citizens and legal immigrants. ie If Wal*Mart/Domino's/etc can't hire enough workers by offering minimum wage with no benefits, they can import workers from ThirdWorld countries.
And no, H1-B employees have no right whatsoever to cease working for the hiring company for any reason whatsoever: upon penalty of mandatory automatic deportation, even if another employer wants to sponsor them.
posted
Actually, programmers from abroad tend to be very good. The problem is that they are paid at ~60% of the salary/wage of American citizens and permanent residents. More often than not, with even more greatly reduced benefit packages.
And they can't just switch jobs if another company offers them better wages&benefits. They must quit, leave the country, hope that the offering company reserves a job for them, hope that the offering company will submit the paperwork requesting that they be allowed into the country to work, and hope that the immigration department will grant the offering company's request. And quitting a job can be offered as evidence against allowing the worker back into the US.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tendency is to lay off American workers and permanent residents while retaining H1-B foreigners during "downsizing". Indentured labor is less expensive as well as more dependable via "Ya can't quit for a better job." and "Ya better do whatever I say cuz I can fire ya and getcha booted out of the US."
Now, do you really want a choice between taking a 40% paycut as well as a major benefits cut as opposed to losing your job to a foreigner who is imported specificly to replace you?
If you choose 60%pay&etc, what is to stop your employer from hiring a ThirdWorlder at 50% pay with no benefits if you refuse to accept that same offer? Indentured servitude is a race to the bottom of the heap: the lower limit being set by the amount of pay offered in a ThirdWorld country and the degree of political&economic repression that a ThirdWorlder is willing to endure to remain amongst familiar surroundings.
If you are so dang good at your job that you're irreplaceable, do you really want your neighbors to be forced into ThirdWorld living standards? just so eg Microsoft'sBillGates and Wal*Mart'sWaltons can add a few more tens of billions to their own wealth?
quote: And hiring local programmers is more expensive than hiring people abroad and bringing them in.
Did you guys see the title of this thread? The essay makes the argument that it might be cheaper in, to put it politely, an ethically comprised fashion. Are any of you really making the argument that in order to get a job, someone should be chained to that job for several years and be the company's slave, or risk never being able to work in the U.S. and in their field again? Is this not indentured servitude?
Yes, it is. But it's voluntary indentured servitude. In the same way, Boris knows college students willing to work for $2 an hour, mainly because they're desperate and lack self-respect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
