Remember recently I blogged about Microsoft deciding to open up a research center in Vancouver largely in response to the lack of H-1B visas in the US? Some of the protectionists who read the blog attacked Microsoft saying it was a big lie and even hysterically attacking the company's patriotism. But many companies are quietly expanding overseas operations partially in response to the H-1B crisis.
Money Magazine reports on Google's operations in India. Here's a quote that should raise some concern:
Google chose Bangalore in 2004 as the site of its first R&D center outside the U.S., says Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, who heads Google's Asia operations from the company's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, in part "because so many Googlers who are Indian want to move back to India and participate in India's growth."
And with the U.S. now issuing half the H-1B visas for skilled high-tech workers that it did in 1999, combined with fewer foreign students coming to study at American universities, the newly minted versions of engineers like Narendran and Ram haven't been coming to the U.S. in the same numbers anyway. It used to be that you had to go to the U.S. to participate in technology's cutting edge. It used to be that Indians thought it was more prestigious to get a U.S. education and work in California. Not anymore.
Google is riding this trend, as are many other companies in India. Yahoo employs about 900 engineers at a research center in Bangalore, roughly nine times more than at Google's. And IBM has hired 53,000 people in India, becoming the nation's largest foreign employer. That's not to mention the 285,000 employed by India's four tech giants: Infosys Technologies, Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, and Satyam.
It never hurts to repeat this truth - H-1Bs and high tech immigration SAVE jobs for Americans. The jobs that might have been filled by Americans but instead go to India and elsewhere due to a lack of access to global talent exceed by far any jobs that might be saved if we bar foreign workers.
"Anyone in our industry would understand perfectly clear what was meant by what I said."
And anyone in our industry would understand perfectly clear that what you said was wrong. Anybody with a clue, that is.
Face it, you could have said what you wanted to say quite nicely without throwing a buzzword in. But you wanted to show off, and got caught... And then you reacted like the bad wanna-be politician you are...
Posted by: JoeF | October 31, 2007 at 10:26 PM
"I just pointed out that procedural doesn't mean what you think it means."
When you use words like "mankind" do you think that excludes women? Of course not. Anyone who understands our language also understand that "mankind" refers to us as a species, not a sex.
Anyone in our industry would understand perfectly clear what was meant by what I said. Unless of course they are in a cave doing low-level kernel development. I wasn't aware that they changed the policy giving you people Internet access. Go back to your cube and don't come out!
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 30, 2007 at 10:23 AM
"By procedural and Cobol, that was referring to the fact that it wasn't an OO language. But you were too obtuse to pick up on that."
Oh, I got that very well. I just pointed out that procedural doesn't mean what you think it means. I've seen too many people like you throwing around buzzwords in wrong contexts, just to impress. I only burst your bubble a bit. In other words, you are not as smart as you think...
Posted by: JoeF | October 30, 2007 at 09:18 AM
"because I got a perfect score on the logic sections of the LSAT"
For someone into logic, you don't seem terribly keen on looking at facts. For example, trade deficit and it's trends or the value of the dollar. For example on the H-1b, where the numbers go and who the top sponsors are - and what the average salaries are.
How can you make any logical connections unless you look at facts and independent data surrounding an issue?
You introduce your political and personal opinions and make logical connections based on that. I introduce facts, and it must frustrate you when the facts don't support your opinions.
You started out the trade debate under the premise that our current form of trade is free trade. And that anyone who opposes our current form of trade opposes free trade. The problem is that your original premise is wrong.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 29, 2007 at 06:47 AM
"Roy - I can't predict the future, but I have a pretty strong sense that the Grassley tax is going nowhere based on what I know. USC always seems to have good contacts and I'm interested in hearing his opinion."
I do try to speak with the folks in DC once every month or two. For you, I would have made the phone call today. However, I am in New Delhi on my way to Beijing tonight from where I will be embarking on a 16 day cruise of the Far East.
Aside from that, if you want my opinion (which is all it is) from what I have gathered from my past conversations I would agree with your conclusions. I can't point to one thing or an another to justify my opinion but that is the impression I receive from my past chats.
I will try and find out more when I get a chance.
As regards your discussion with MG vis a vis free trade & labor cartels, I hope you have better luck with your argument than I did in convincing him that a currency basket is not the same thing as a managed float. I sincerely wish you well, but you will forgive me if I say I am not hopeful! LOL!
Posted by: USC | October 29, 2007 at 01:26 AM
»So you believe that our budget and trade deficits, at current levels, are nothing to worry about?<<
I'll boast a little and tell you that the reason I got in to the University of Chicago Law School (just ranked by Princeton Review as the top law school in the US), is because I got a perfect score on the logic sections of the LSAT. I presume programmers must know a thing or two about logic and now I'm getting a little concerned about your skills in that department. I reject your entire attempt to draw a connection between free immigration policy and either our trade or our budget deficit. That's part of the illogical, nonsense you've been pushing claiming somehow imposing a labor cartel is a form of free trade. Cartels only lead to inefficiencies in the marketplace. You can try and say it 20 different ways, but you are promoting a labor cartel. You would score a lot more points with me and those of us here if you were honest in admitting you are against free trade and for a cartel and then try and say why those are worthwhile tradeoffs in terms of the damage they will do to the economy in exchange for the benefits that will accrue to the particular US workers you are seeking to protect. Convince people that those people deserve protecting and you won't have to continue to defy logic.
I'm now going to take the host's prerogative tell you that this is my last word on the subject as the conversation has gone quite stale. You're welcome to talk to yourself or to others that may still want to continue the conversation.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 28, 2007 at 08:49 PM
JoeF - I would LOVE to debate you publicly on your views on C#. Any time. Any place. I can assure you that in an environment surrounded by our peers, there will be very few people to agree with you.
C# is not dead, on the desktop or otherwise. Nor is Java. You are a fool. By procedural and Cobol, that was referring to the fact that it wasn't an OO language. But you were too obtuse to pick up on that.
Even though Cobol is out of style, I would remind you that it too is alive and well in the Enterprise. And I don't think it is going anywhere in a hurry. Enterprise systems are way too dependent on it.
What is clear is that you don't understand much about Enterprise application development. Go back to your cave and create Windows drivers. That sounds like tons of fun ;-) Do they let you out to speak with people?
I can picture you now. Old. Beard. Introverted. Angry. Probably into porn or some other deviant behavior. I know of an organization you would fit right into ;-) Ooops did I say that?
Posted by: | October 28, 2007 at 08:40 PM
"and always the Roys of the country warning of impending doom"
So you believe that our budget and trade deficits, at current levels, are nothing to worry about? I just want you on record so that when it really does hit the fan I can give you a call and rub it in your face. If I can afford the call, that is. I may have to mail a letter - assuming postage isn't too much.
At no time during our history between Hoover and now have our trade and budget deficits been so high, as a percentage of GDP. Our deficits are of historical proportions. I believe that WWII war spending was higher than Iraq (if adjusted for inflation of course) but our deficits have never been as they are today.
Even our debtors are having second thoughts about the dollar. Even Allen Greenspan went after Bush in his book because of the budget deficit. So how can deficit spending, at today's levels, possibly healthy for our country?
We are going to witness the USD tank. Mark my words. It's already at record lows against the BP and EU. This isn't alarmism. Your ideas and the ideas of the unfair traders are about to lose favor in Congress. You don't really think Democrats are going to allow this to continue do you?
Level heads will prevail. The wreckless trade agreements will be replaced with FAIR trade agreements. We aren't talking about stopping global trade. We are talking about reciprocal trade agreements. Balance. Since when is balance such a radical idea?
It seems to me that imbalance - which you support - is quite radical.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 08:31 PM
"C# is an object oriented language. Most languages have procedural aspects, but C# is most definately an OO language."
Yeah, and? It is still a procedural language. A pure OO language would have message passing. C# has procedure calls, and therefore is a procedural language.
You obviously have no clue about programming languages. I have friends who have developed programming languages.
And compiling everything down to an IL obviously limits its usefulness to languages that can be reduced to the IL. While there are Lisp.Net and Haskell.Net, these are usually just a subset of the language, since some concepts of functional languages can not be expressed in MSIL.
As for C# on the desktop, it is as dead as Java on the desktop. I have yet to see a serious application written in C#. Come back when MS Office is written in C#. Until then, I stand by my claim that C# is pretty much a dead language. Useful in some niche, but not mainstream.
Posted by: JoeF | October 28, 2007 at 08:07 PM
»The Bush trade doctrine (of blissful ingnorance) will be something we study in the history books.<<
Actually, this is the one area of relative continuity of Presidents for the last sixty years. Who was the last anti-trade President? I mean really anti-trade, not an occasional steel tariff. Hoover is probably the last one. The entire post-war history of the US is about expanding trade with the world and negotiating one trade deal after another (and always the Roys of the country warning of impending doom).
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 28, 2007 at 07:44 PM
"this little stalemate will continue for a little while."
Probably.
"But sooner or later, the forces of free trade always win out in this country"
The current style of free trade is going to bring this country to its knees. The trade deficits are not sustainable. Combined with the budget deficits, our children and probably grandchildren will be paying for today's wreckless policies.
This isn't free trade. This is a firesale. There is nothing balanced or fair about what we have today. And to compare my support of FAIR trade to some soviet style of communism is not only absurd, it is wreckless.
The Bush trade doctrine (of blissful ingnorance) will be something we study in the history books.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 07:31 PM
"My guess is that Senator Edwards would support the Grassley/Durbin law, in conjunction with an expansion of the H-1b cap, and also would obviously support efforts to encourage more American college students to pursue math and sciences."
Hmm, Roy, I only heard Edwards say the H-1B should be expanded, not made more restrictive a la Grassley/Durbin (I prefer to put the Republican first just to emphasize the measure is anti-business just as the GOP preferred to always put Harry Reid's name on the CIR legislation). Sounds like you're projecting when it comes to Edwards.
I don't think there's a chance in hell any of the leading candidates will vote for any of the super-anti-business/anti-competitive measures PG is pushing for, but you keep your hopin' Roy. They might not be able to pass any legislation going in the other direction either and this little stalemate will continue for a little while. But sooner or later, the forces of free trade always win out in this country and there WILL be a free market in services (and no, Roy, your Soviet-style way of defining a cartel as free trade (remember the Deutsche Demokratische Republik?) doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 28, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Edwards on the topic:
Regarding the H-1B visa question: I think it is important for us to have available, for the work that’s being done here in this valley, plus all over the country, the talent and the mental capacity we need. So the H-1B visa program is important; it should be expanded, based on the needs that exist. Also important is that America needs to be doing a much better, more-effective job in producing, from our own young people, the talent pool that can perform these jobs, and my view is that we are not concentrating on science and math the way that we need to. We’re not concentrating on graduate education in those areas the way we need to. But immigration is a very hot topic out there in America, and a very divisive topic. You can be in front of a group of progressive Democrats, and there will be a lot of people in the room who want to know what you’re going to do about the illegal immigrants, and they’re not thinking about a path to citizenship. Secondly, I do think we should be tougher on employers who are knowingly violating the law, and in many cases, abusing workers. But the third piece, and this is the more controversial one, I do think that there should be a path to citizenship, and it needs to be a meaningful path to citizenship. I think the path that was in the bill that was last considered by the Senate was completely unrealistic. I mean most undocumented workers in America would never meet that standard, which means they would never become American citizens. And I don’t want to live in a country that’s made up of first-class citizens and second-class laborers.
My guess is that Senator Edwards would support the Grassley/Durbin law, in conjunction with an expansion of the H-1b cap, and also would obviously support efforts to encourage more American college students to pursue math and sciences.
Edwards:"(the H-1b) should be expanded, based on the needs that exist."
The question for Senator Edwards is where he believe the need exists, and how much of a need it is.
I was at a recent campaign event in Tampa for Senator Edwards. Well, before all the candidates decided to stay out of Florida because of the primary date.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 06:45 PM
"Surprised you like Edwards given his recent pro-H-1B program remarks. "
I've yet to hear a complete statement or position from him on this. Even I would support a higher cap if Durbin/Grassly was inacted, so someone supporting a higher cap isn't a deal breaker for me. It's the details that matter.
Edwards is also very progressive on a variety of economic issues. Overall, he is the best choice for me.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 06:20 PM
"I'm very supportive of Senator Edwards, Webb, and Tester."
Surprised you like Edwards given his recent pro-H-1B program remarks. He hardly seems likely to okay changes you have in mind (to his credit).
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 28, 2007 at 05:59 PM
"C# is a procedural language as well...And, btw, C# is pretty much a dead language, mostly used for back-end Web programming with Microsoft's Webserver."
C# is an object oriented language. Most languages have procedural aspects, but C# is most definately an OO language.
It is also very much alive - and a big part of business application development in just about every large (and many a small) corporation. The language isn't that important - the .Net framework allows you to develop in Visual Basic, C++, C#, J#, Delphi .Net, and probably more. You can invent your own .Net language (if you have plenty of time on your hands) because it all compiles down to IL.
Now I know that you have absolutely know clue. You can develop both desktop and web applications using .Net. It competes with J2EE and other Java based environments. It isn't going anywhere - in fact it is growing in popularity. And the latest versions of the framework just get better.
If there are any developers reading this, they are most certainly laughing at you. I don't know anybody (who is credible) that thinks C# or .Net is dead.
Provide a link to any source that substatiates your position that C# is dead. You will be hard pressed to find one.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 05:52 PM
"I don't do procedural languages like Cobol. Would be a terrible waste of talent"
C# is a procedural language as well...
With every answer, you show that you are clueless and that you just throw buzzwords around without knowing what they mean.
Now, if you had mentioned functional programming languages like Lisp, ML, Haskell, etc. then I would be impressed. There actually is a .Net variant of Haskell (from MS Research...)
And, btw, C# is pretty much a dead language, mostly used for back-end Web programming with Microsoft's Webserver.
Posted by: JoeF | October 28, 2007 at 05:32 PM
"the Grassley tax is going nowhere based on what I know."
I wasn't talking about the Grassley fee. I was talking about the Grassley/Durbin h-1b reform legislation.
I'm not sure where the tax bill is going. It's not one of my top priorities - the reforms are. I don't think you will see a hike in the cap without meaningful reforms.
I've worked closely with several Democratic campaigns - I doubt Democrats will raise the cap. Of course, I'm not supportive of the Clinton/Kennedy wing or know what they are thinking (or if they are thinking). Senator Clinton hasn't found a donor she doesn't like - lobbyists welcome.
I'm very supportive of Senator Edwards, Webb, and Tester.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 05:12 PM
"If Durbin/Grassly passes, that will be one. Also, the lobbyists didn't have the political power to extend the 195,000 cap so they let that expire. Pascrell has also introduced favorable legislation."
Roy - I can't predict the future, but I have a pretty strong sense that the Grassley tax is going nowhere based on what I know. USC always seems to have good contacts and I'm interested in hearing his opinion.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 28, 2007 at 04:34 PM
"People in Congress think twice before voting against American jobs. If we weren't so vocal, that would not happen."
Is this the same Congress that has a 22% approval rating right now? I don't think I'd be making your point by discussing the wisdom of the Congress. I don't think many of us think they do what's best for the country as opposed to what they need to do to get re-elected.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 28, 2007 at 04:31 PM
"I'm not aware of any legislation that has "passed" that would be in favor of PG."
If Durbin/Grassly passes, that will be one. Also, the lobbyists didn't have the political power to extend the 195,000 cap so they let that expire. Pascrell has also introduced favorable legislation.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 28, 2007 at 03:42 PM
"Which, I guess, is not something you can say. Cobol doesn't pay that much nowadays ;-)"
LOL... I'm a .Net/C# developer. I've made the "club". If you hit rough times just let me know. I know how hard it can be for people like you doing work that can be so easily offshored ;-)
I don't do procedural languages like Cobol. Would be a terrible waste of talent ;-)
"LOL. Rather unlikely. You are seen by everybody who matters in Congress as the whiners you are."
People in Congress think twice before voting against American jobs. If we weren't so vocal, that would not happen.
Posted by: | October 28, 2007 at 03:41 PM
"Actually, we've been quite effective getting legislation passed."
I'm not familiar with the actual lobbying that's going on w.r.t. H-1B and EB immigration reforms. I can guess that you've successfully lobbied against H-1B quota increases. I'm not aware of any legislation that has "passed" that would be in favor of PG. Could you please shed some light on this?
Posted by: Sid | October 28, 2007 at 10:31 AM
"Given how special your skills are, you must easily make the 6-figure club. Right?"
I don't understand why 6-figures alone is big deal anymore. What matters more is where you make those 6-figures. It's very common for Bay Area folks to make that much but you'll hear everyone complain about the cost of housing and day care.
Posted by: Sid | October 28, 2007 at 10:27 AM
"Actually, we've been quite effective getting legislation passed."
LOL. Rather unlikely. You are seen by everybody who matters in Congress as the whiners you are.
Besides being whiners, you also seem to be delusional. The IEEE-USA is much more effective than you whiners are. And they seem to have changed a bit from the days of Paul Donnelly (I had some discussions with him way back in the late 90ies...)
And yes, I am (obviously) in the 6-figure club, as you call it...
Which, I guess, is not something you can say. Cobol doesn't pay that much nowadays ;-)
Posted by: JoeF | October 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM
"And now you blame others who go with the new technology, whereas you sit on your behinds and whine."
Actually, we've been quite effective getting legislation passed. That doesn't happen from sitting on our behinds.
Also, I've been very busy these days. I don't have a problem making good money. Given how special your skills are, you must easily make the 6-figure club. Right?
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 09:26 PM
"Unfortunately for you, you're talking to someone who knows WTF they are talking about. Been around the block enough times to know people like you. The stuff you do is a dead end career in this country."
No, Roy, it only has been a dead-end for whiners like you. It is Your career that is obviously over, since that's what the PG is all about: a haven for has-beens who sit around all day whining about how bad the competition has been to them...
Technology advances, you guys haven't. And now you blame others who go with the new technology, whereas you sit on your behinds and whine.
Posted by: JoeF | October 27, 2007 at 08:19 PM
Sid: "Are you referring to "OSX Internals" by Amit Singh who was hired by Google?"
No, I am referring to "Windows NT Filesystem Internals" by Rajeev Nagar: http://www.amazon.com/Windows-File-System-Internals-Developers/dp/1565922492
It was out of print for a long time, you couldn't even get it used, because everybody who had it hold on to it. It still is the "bible" for Windows kernel developers. It finally is available again as a reprint.
Shortly after the book came out in 1997, the author got hired by Microsoft.
Posted by: JoeF | October 27, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Prior post was mine.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 05:25 PM
"Although the exchange rate system in India is supposed to be a full float, the RBI intervenes in the market at regular intervals to direct the movement in rupee values (thus the term "managed float'')." "
I agree with your assessment. India could be worse (like China) but they could also be much better. Given their rapid economic growth, I would expect their currency to rise much faster.
I've heard the RBI intervention described in the past as a basket, but technically I believe it is a managed float. What gives it "basket" characteristics is that the RBI buys a variety of foreign currencies to keep their currency at a desired rate.
I think it is good that the US is a freely traded currency - because it is self correcting. In the long run, India and China are hurting themselves. In the short run, they are hurting us. They should move to open their currency more, or else I suspect the next administration will punish them with tarriffs. Even the EU is growing weary of their own massive trade deficit with China.
Their actions will only fuel protectionism - which is why it harms them in the long run. If they want to stop fanning the flames, they need to take some actions before they start a trade war.
Posted by: | October 27, 2007 at 05:25 PM
"The Rupee is managed."
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. There are two kinds of float; free float and managed float. Apparently, India is on the managed float and not on the "currency basket" as you claimed in your initial post. An excerpt from the link below confirms:
http://www.hindu.com/biz/2003/10/13/stories/2003101300050200.htm
"Finally, in the Union budget for 1993-94, "full float'' of the rupee was allowed.
The `managed float' system
Although the exchange rate system in India is supposed to be a full float, the RBI intervenes in the market at regular intervals to direct the movement in rupee values (thus the term "managed float'')."
All countries intervene in the currency markets to one degree or another so most countries would fall under the managed float categories. According to the above article only the US, Japan & Switzerland (with Germany no longer having an independent currency) could claim to be on a free float.
Posted by: USC | October 27, 2007 at 02:16 PM
JoeF: "Or they hire the author of the most important book on the topic (an Indian immigrant, btw.)"
Are you referring to "OSX Internals" by Amit Singh who was hired by Google?
Posted by: Sid | October 27, 2007 at 02:14 PM
"the Rupee is now in fact floating."
The Rupee is managed. But with USD and EU money pouring in, there is only so much they can do to manipulate it. They are trying their best to keep the value low. If it appreciates much more, their offshore service model will take a hit.
The natural market value for the Rupee is higher than what is is being traded at.
China is engaged in an outright peg. I believe that once China stops manipulating their currency, just about every other country will also.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 01:59 PM
"I think you prove my point about 30 or 40 times a day regarding the competitiveness of your ideas. Seems a little desperate. "
I'll give you the last word. ;-)
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 01:47 PM
"I've heard no complaints from you in regards to China pegging their currency. I've heard no complaints from you for India's "basket" currency."
I am not sure whether or not China is on a peg but there is no such thing as a basket currency. Perhaps, you are referring to a currency basket. See below:
http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/deptdata/mth/curbaske.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencybasket.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/020603.asp?partner=answers
In any event, the peg in the case of China would be to the Dollar and in effect they have ceded control of their capital markets to the US since they would be effected by any interest rate changes that the Fed might make. The HK Dollar has been pegged to the USD for almost two decades. Prior to the early 1970s all currencies including the USD were pegged to the gold. So each had a fixed relative to the other. I am not sure that it can be proven that China has pegged the Yuan at rate to maximize their export performance.
As regards India, they would have no control over their exchange rate once they chose their basket currencies. India was in fact once on a basket I am not sure but believe that such is no longer the case and the Rupee is now in fact floating. In either case the govie has no direct control over the exchange rate. That perhaps explains why the Rupee has rises from 46 to the Dollar to about 39 to the Dollar in the past 12 months. The Government of India is decidedly unhappy about this but there is nothing they can do. Not much in the way of control!
Posted by: USC | October 27, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Roy - I'll let you get the last word since I think my last post spoke for itself. I think you prove my point about 30 or 40 times a day regarding the competitiveness of your ideas. Seems a little desperate.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 27, 2007 at 01:18 PM
"You are trying to open one direction of the road, while the other direction remains closed."
That doesn't do what you're doing justice. You are creating a one-way super highway. And OK with a little donkey trail going the other way.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 01:04 PM
"Well, Roy, ultimately my team is about competing and yours is about a avoiding competition"
Please, your team is about flooding markets and tampering with the natural flow of goods and services. Trade is a two way street. You are trying to open one direction of the road, while the other direction remains closed.
I've heard no complaints from you in regards to China pegging their currency. I've heard no complaints from you for India's "basket" currency. On the matter of foreign workers getting paid less, that seems OK by you also - no qualms with exploitation of people. You have no objection to employers controlling their workers ability to live in this country - so you don't want foreign workers on the free market. Narry a complaint in regards to China and India's lax environmental and labor laws. Line up kids - time for work!
Our markets are more fair and more open than just about any market in the world (possible exception being the EU). Our trade agreements with China, India, Mexico, etc are very one sided - they getting the better deal, hence our massive trade deficits.
You're the biggest protectionist I know. Only you're protecting the interest of our global competitors. Well played!
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 01:02 PM
"State "professions" are really a way of collecting a tax, USC. So don't be too dissapointed ;-)"
How about we ask Greenspan to sit for a licensing exam? After all he (well, Bernanke) and the other gnomes at the Fed control not just the US economy but the entire world's. He had his cohorts could show up with freshly sharpened (I am afraid that they are too old to take the modern computer based tests) No. 2 at the local high school every year. The media could question them on their way out as to how they thought they did on their tests. Depending on their answers the stock market could soar or crash! ROFLMAO!!
Posted by: USC | October 27, 2007 at 01:01 PM
>>You guys do allot more complaining than we do.<<
Well, Roy, ultimately my team is about competing and yours is about a avoiding competition, so we're going to win on who outwhines who in the end. :-)
Of course, I guess I'm winning the competition of ideas with folks like you. You seem to spend a lot more time here than at your own blog (http://techpol.blogspot.com/ ). Saw your last blog post was in April. Have you given up and decided the comments section of my blog is the only way to get your ideas in front of people?
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM
State "professions" are really a way of collecting a tax, USC. So don't be too dissapointed ;-)
I think they do that to barbers because they are typically cash only enterprises and notorious for not paying taxes. They figure that a fee for a barbers license helps make up for them not reporting all of their earnings.
The word is not always used by the DOL in the correct context. Most people don't use it correctly, even me. PE (professional engineer), CPAs (CERTIFIED public accountants), Lawyers, Doctors, etc all pass rigorous exams to practice in their profession. So they get special status.
If you are a licensed engineer (PE), then this doesn't apply to you.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
"I'm sure the 98% of people in your field who are working and not whining will be very pleased that you downgraded them out of the definition of a "profession" to protect the labor cartel. Drifting from reality, Roy..."
Thanks a lot MG. I am pleased to learn that I am not a professional but barbers & hairstylists are.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/listoflncs.htm
I am sure Nuclear Engineers, Scientists & Drug Researchers will be similarly delighted.
Posted by: USC | October 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
"I'm sure the 98% of people in your field who are working and not whining will be very pleased that you downgraded them out of the definition of a "profession" to protect the labor cartel. Drifting from reality, Roy..."
Greg, I didn't downgrade anyone. The Department of Labor does not define us as a profession. Look on their website.
And unless we have licensing and occupational educational/exam requirements we aren't really an organized profession.
We have the IEEE Computer Society, the ACM, the PG, and a bunch of users groups (I run one of those also). But we have no professional ethical requirements. I actually want to "upgrade" our status by having more structure in our profession.
Why is everyone in our profession that works against unfair practices whiners Greg? Just what is it you guys are doing about our immigration laws and the enforcement of them? How is it we are whiners and you guys are what - activists? Please. If we are whiners, you guys are cry babies.
Whaaaa - they don't smile at customs. Whaaaa - they actually expect us to go through a line to enter the country. Whaaa - they raised the H-1b fee. Whaaa - there isn't enough labor and we don't want to pay our people enough. Whaaaaaa!
You guys do allot more complaining than we do.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 11:22 AM
"So one strategy for us (your opponents ;-) would be to get the 1991 ruling reversed or the law changed in Congress if that can't be done - to more strongly define a profession. Currently, the BLS classifies software engineers and programmers as "Computer Occupations"."
I'm sure the 98% of people in your field who are working and not whining will be very pleased that you downgraded them out of the definition of a "profession" to protect the labor cartel. Drifting from reality, Roy...
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 27, 2007 at 08:53 AM
"And since it requires a ton of experience, it is not easily outsourced."
I'm happy if you think your job can't be outsourced - you're probably happier as well if you really believe that. Since your goal isn't really to debate, rather to attack me - I'm not going to engage in this discourse for much longer.
I use to work for Intel (in R&D) and they now offshore much of the type of work you do. I was at PTD and Fab 14 in Hillsboro. Unfortunately for you, you're talking to someone who knows WTF they are talking about. Been around the block enough times to know people like you. The stuff you do is a dead end career in this country.
When it (being a layoff) happens to you, and in your case I hope it does because you aren't a nice guy, you'll be the type to have an emotional breakdown because you've been with the company so long - "how could they do this to me". When that happens, call the PG and they can help get you through it. I've seen it so many times - with people just like you with YEARS of experience getting cut.
One day you're going to find that your company can't afford that high salary. They'll bring a box to your cube or 10x10 office, thank you, and have security walk you to the door.
Good luck with that. And remember - www.programmersguild.org.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 07:34 AM
"meant at least a bachelor's degree, and therefore the ability to qualify for immigration under the existing third preference as a member of the professions. "
Well, there you go. And this goes back to our previous discussion on licensing. Technically, software engineering and programming is not a profession. It is a computer occupation. A profession typically has a licensing body, and an organization that guides the practice of that profession. We have best practices and bodies of knowledge, but we don't have professional requirements.
But in 1991, the definition of profession(according to the information you provided) was relaxed:
"on October 1, 1991, held that ``recognition of status as a member of the professions is attained through completion of high education, generally at the baccalaureate level or higher, by virtue of which the individual becomes qualified to enter a particular field of endeavor.''"
So one strategy for us (your opponents ;-) would be to get the 1991 ruling reversed or the law changed in Congress if that can't be done - to more strongly define a profession. Currently, the BLS classifies software engineers and programmers as "Computer Occupations".
Of course, I'll bet everyone on this board who argued against me when it comes to licensing will then be a full supporter of licensing in my OCCUPATION ;-) And of course, I'll have a change of heart on us becoming a PROFESSION by definition ;-) LoL.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 27, 2007 at 07:16 AM
"That's a good skill that requires a strong understanding of technology. Unfortunately, that job can be offshored. Probably much easier than a business application."
You show that you have no clue about this kind of work. Not surprising for somebody who have never done this.
It not only requires "a strong understanding of technology", it requires a lot of experience. Even Microsoft has a shortage of people who can do that work. They get training from some of the real experts, or they buy the companies, like Mark Russinovich's company Wininternals. Or they hire the author of the most important book on the topic (an Indian immigrant, btw.)
And since it requires a ton of experience, it is not easily outsourced.
Thanks again for showing the world that you, like probably everybody else at the loser organization you represent, have no clue about this stuff.
Posted by: JoeF | October 26, 2007 at 10:40 PM
>>I'm going to assume you already know the answer ;-) So, what were the material changes to the law in 1990?<<
Here's text from the Lexis treatise that makes it clear the bachelors requirement was not new. The 90 act simply clarified the requirement. I assume you want to backtrack a little:
[i]The Early Regulations
Although the immigration agency did not earlier publish criteria by which to consider claims of distinguished merit and ability, it clearly indicated by its regulations of 1964 that ``high education'' was a means of qualifying. 36. By not altering the term ``distinguished merit and ability'' when it reenacted the H-1 provision in 1970, Congress effectively ratified this administrative construction. Moreover the House Judiciary Committee was explicit in stating that it meant the existing criteria to remain in force, including qualification by prominence or a ``high level of education.'' By 1970, the regulations of the agency had for several years specified that documents to support the claim to H-1 status could include ``diplomas'' and ``degrees,'' documentation usually associated with high education.
[ii]High Education and the Link to Professions
It also seems clear that the term, ``high level of education,'' when used in the Judiciary Committee's 1970 report, meant at least a bachelor's degree, and therefore the ability to qualify for immigration under the existing third preference as a member of the professions. Typically, third-preference decisions, from 1966 until the IA90 selection system became effective on October 1, 1991, held that ``recognition of status as a member of the professions is attained through completion of high education, generally at the baccalaureate level or higher, by virtue of which the individual becomes qualified to enter a particular field of endeavor.'' 37. The Judiciary Committee's reference to a ``high level of education'' and to ``field of endeavor'' may thus be less a coincidence and more an understanding that the test of ``distinguished merit and ability'' could be met by someone then defined as a member of the professions--someone qualified in a particular field of work, for which entry ordinarily requires a specialized education culminating in at least a bachelor's degree.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 10:35 PM
"What's the wager worth to you?"
I'm going to assume you already know the answer ;-) So, what were the material changes to the law in 1990?
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 09:09 PM
>>Prior to 1990, what constituted "distinguised merit and ability"? I'll bet it was more than a 4 year degree.<<
What's the wager worth to you?
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 08:26 PM
>Let me tell you all an easy and simple proposal to stop overblown abuses and violations that h1b adversaries keep whining about, Strenghten the whistleblower protections for H1B visa holders who alert the agencies about possible violations by offering these people a place reserved in the immigration queue(This does not even have to be immidiate PR). These violations will stop overnight. Victims(if you want to call them such way) will not come forward if it results in they losing the status. I think such kind of protections are already available for domestic violence victims. Only thing I like about Durbin/Grassely bill is it mandates the sharing of all immigration documents with benificiary.<
There are a few whistleblower protections already, but not enough. Perhaps expanding the S visa category for informants and witnesses in criminal and terrorism cases to include these folks.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 08:23 PM
"Ever heard of kernel-level development? Filesystem drivers, filter drivers? There are no "learn driver development in 24 hours"-style books... This is something that not many people know how to do, period."
That's a good skill that requires a strong understanding of technology. Unfortunately, that job can be offshored. Probably much easier than a business application.
You may retain a job just because you have experience, but you don't see many people out of college (in the US) doing what you do. Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 08:22 PM
"JoeF: Want to put money on it?"
If I was the betting type, I would. As somebody trained in math, I don't bet.
"So what is this special skill you have that nobody offshore has?"
I didn't say nobody. You have a tendency to twist words.
Ever heard of kernel-level development? Filesystem drivers, filter drivers? There are no "learn driver development in 24 hours"-style books... This is something that not many people know how to do, period.
Posted by: JoeF | October 26, 2007 at 08:07 PM
"I coined it "best come first serve" instead of the current "first come first serve" system. I would be very happy if corporations are removed from the process."
I would support anything that clears the current backlog in a year or two even if that means moving to some officers in Washington D.C deciding who is more employable :)
Posted by: Legal Immi | October 26, 2007 at 06:04 PM
"Then you can't argue in favor of employment based Green Cards and O-1 visas while outlawing H-1Bs. Both are examples of government policies on immigration to help companies and the US economy."
I've long argued that companies not sponsor individuals - and for a merit based system that extends to EB visas. I think individuals should sponsor themselves - and demonstrate their qualifications. I coined it "best come first serve" instead of the current "first come first serve" system. I would be very happy if corporations are removed from the process.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 04:28 PM
"So Roy I'm happy to have you around even if I seem to beat up on you."
You guys may have figured out who I am - I haven't done a very good job of hiding that. I post anonymously because I am saying things that don't represent the views of companies and organizations I associate with.
It's much better, in my oppinion, to debate your opponents that yuck it up with your supporters. First, you explore more sides of the issue. Second, you learn what arguments do or don't hold water. Your supporters won't make much of an effort to attack your ideas - so you can hold fast to some strawman arguments.
I've never known a boxer who became good by shadow boxing. They've got to get in there and fight. If I want someone to tell me how great I am, I'll talk to my mother.
Posted by: | October 26, 2007 at 04:19 PM
"That's an individual question for each company. Our immigration policy shouldn't support or enable the practice, and our tax laws shouldn't reward the practice."
Then you can't argue in favor of employment based Green Cards and O-1 visas while outlawing H-1Bs. Both are examples of government policies on immigration to help companies and the US economy.
You can't have employment based immigration and then argue that the government should not intervene when it comes to temporary work visas. Then you should have immigration based on only humanitarian needs like family based and refugee.
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 04:10 PM
USCIS - check out their definition of Specialty Occupation: "For example, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts are specialty occupations."
Notice that software/programming/computer isn't directly mentioned? It is specifically mentioned in the law. Strange that it was removed. I wonder why they would do that, considering how many people go into that occupation under the program.
Also see Who Can They Work For: "The petitioning U.S. employer may place the H-1B worker on the worksite of another employer if all applicable rules (e.g., Department of Labor rules) are followed."
The body shops love this one. Durbin / Grassley changes this to onsite only - not body shops. It more strongly defines prevailing wage.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 04:05 PM
>
"Ohh man . Finallly u agreed that u r Roy."
No, I am Batman. ;-)<
Actually, Roy outed himself a few weeks back. Roy once promised he would not post here again and I was disappointed because its fun to have the fireworks of a lively discussion. So Roy I'm happy to have you around even if I seem to beat up on you.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 04:00 PM
"And where do you get this from? In the 1990 Immigration Act, the definition of who qualified for an H-1B was changed from someone with "distinguished merit and ability" to one in a "specialty occupation" which is simply an occupation that requires a bachelors degree as a requirement for entry."
Can you send a letter to every member of Congress so they are fully aware of that? From the political rhetoric I hear from the IT lobby and anyone else chiming in, one would think the visa was just for rocket scientists and doctors.
Protections were also added (prevailing wages) but they don't offer any real protections because prevailing wages are defined well below market wage. You can probably recite what date that law was passed, I can't remember.
Prior to 1990, what constituted "distinguised merit and ability"? I'll bet it was more than a 4 year degree.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 03:59 PM
Some of the basic questions answered by USCIS at their website about H1B
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
"That is the political argument that all of the lobbyists made in favor of the H-1b, and most of the politicians who supported it"
Sorry to say this but every policy is debated and decided using sound bites ,thats the reality in the real world. That applies for all the stake holders in this debate or any debate. Some of the examples of sound bits include "Best and Brightest", "Cheap Labor" , "Greedy corporations" , "Beating wallstreet expectations" , "Disease carrying immigrants" , "Chain Migration" , "Some kind of babies(I dont want to use the term because Greg banned it :))" , "Low Taxes" , "They will raise your taxes" , "They hate america" , "WMD" , "Death Tax" , "Rolling back taxcuts for the wealthiest"..
Posted by: USCIS | October 26, 2007 at 03:54 PM
"The first is regarding the policy for offshoring. Should the US offshore or not?"
That's an individual question for each company. Our immigration policy shouldn't support or enable the practice, and our tax laws shouldn't reward the practice. I would never try and outlaw offshoring. I just don't think the government should be intervening in the market and making it easier to offshore or giving offshore companies a competitive advantage over us.
I am not going to try and stop companies from offshoring work - that's a business decision they must make. My job is to show companies how it would be in their financial interest to not offshore work. To identify ways that doing it here is better. There are cases where offshoring makes sense and cases where it doesn't.
Posted by: | October 26, 2007 at 03:51 PM
»I don't believe the H-1b was intended to allow essentially anyone into this country with a bachelors degree to work. That isn't the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law needs to be better reflected in the implementation of the law. <<
And where do you get this from? In the 1990 Immigration Act, the definition of who qualified for an H-1B was changed from someone with "distinguished merit and ability" to one in a "specialty occupation" which is simply an occupation that requires a bachelors degree as a requirement for entry. Congress then created a new O-1 visa category for people of outstanding ability in their fields. Congress was quite clear in its intentions.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 03:47 PM
"The problem is that there are corporations that I don't believe deserve access to this program - those that pay too little and those that offshore jobs.
Prevent those corporations from accessing the program and 95% of the problem is solved."
There are two separate issues. The first is regarding the policy for offshoring. Should the US offshore or not?
If yes, then you've to provide a mechanism for outsourcing companies to bring people in and out to facilitate that. Currently, there is no visa specifically for that - so H-1B, L1 and B1 visas are used by the outsourcing companies.
If not, then you can add these restrictions to the H-1B visa laws.
According to economic theory, public policy is made based on the overall benefit to the country and not the private benefit to individuals. I understand that offshoring is bad for you. That's a no-brainer. Is it bad for the US economy as well? I don't think so.
One thing that is not considered during the offshoring vs protectionism debate is that companies are not moving work to India only to lower costs. That is one of the reasons. The other and more important reason is that India and China are growing at a much faster rate than the US. In order to capture a piece of those booming markets, US tech companies have to setup a base close to their potential customers. If the US companies were targeting only the US market, they would have less of an incentive to outsource work.
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 03:40 PM
"Argue that this is bad policy, but admit that it's legal."
There are very few companies doing anything genuinely illegal. I have never argued that they (being MOST companies) are. Even most of the bodyshops from India and the offshoring firms are probably operating within the law.
We have a few cases of some body shops withholding money from their workers, and a few other nefarious activities (ie discriminatory ads, lower than prevailing wages, and fraudulent documents). But those violators are in the minority.
So I would agree that violations of the law aren't my major concern - and for the most part not a huge problem.
I believe the policy is a problem. Prevailing wage is improperly/unfairly defined. I believe that we should target the best and brightest - That is the political argument that all of the lobbyists made in favor of the H-1b, and most of the politicians who supported it.
I don't believe the H-1b was intended to allow essentially anyone into this country with a bachelors degree to work. That isn't the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law needs to be better reflected in the implementation of the law. Currently we have more people interested in an H-1b than we have visas available. It makes sense that they are handed out to the best and brightest - and are merit based. It shouldn't be a random lottery.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 03:35 PM
>Why is a program for the best in brightest used to fill entry level jobs - especially when, as some of you claim, there is a shortage of these visas? It makes absolutely no sense.<
Who says the H-1B is for the best and brightest? That's what O-1 visas are form. H-1Bs are for members of specialty occupations - occupations that require bachelors degrees and the program is absolutely designed to help companies fill jobs in shortage areas and shortages come at entry level as well as hire up the employee ladder. Is this why you think there is abuse? Do you misunderstand the qualifications for the visa and are assuming it's an abuse to hire an entry level employee? If you think this is wrong, then you should argue that you would like Congress to enact legislation protecting the labor cartel. But to say that hiring an entry level employee is an abuse simply shows lack of understanding of the law. Argue that this is bad policy, but admit that it's legal.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 03:16 PM
"The answer is more complex and involves a lot of different cases. I just wanted you to feel the kind of frustration we feel when someone claims that they know-it-all and dismisses the whole issue as being about cheap labor. "
Clearly there are highly paid individuals on H-1b visas. I don't dispute that. The problem is not those individuals, the individuals filling true shortages, and really not individuals at all. The problem is that there are corporations that I don't believe deserve access to this program - those that pay too little and those that offshore jobs.
Prevent those corporations from accessing the program and 95% of the problem is solved.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 03:10 PM
»No, I think that can be outsourced also. We have Philipino teachers in urban schools teaching English.<<
MG/Roy - Why do you just make assertions like this that you absolutely have no evidence to back up with data (other than perhaps an anecdote)? I do a LOT of immigration work with school systems - probably more than most immigration lawyers in the country. And there are no school systems that I am aware of that are recruiting internationally in non-English speaking countries for English teachers. In fact, there is virtually no visa work being done for English teachers even from English speaking countries. The vast, vast majority or teachers being hired on visas are in math, science and foreign languages (primarily Spanish for obvious reasons and Hebrew at Jewish Day Schools around the country). Stick to subjects where you can at least argue you have some expertise please.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | October 26, 2007 at 03:10 PM
"Ohh man . Finallly u agreed that u r Roy."
No, I am Batman. ;-)
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Let me tell you all an easy and simple proposal to stop overblown abuses and violations that h1b adversaries keep whining about, Strenghten the whistleblower protections for H1B visa holders who alert the agencies about possible violations by offering these people a place reserved in the immigration queue(This does not even have to be immidiate PR). These violations will stop overnight. Victims(if you want to call them such way) will not come forward if it results in they losing the status. I think such kind of protections are already available for domestic violence victims. Only thing I like about Durbin/Grassely bill is it mandates the sharing of all immigration documents with benificiary.
Posted by: H1B | October 26, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Middle Ground wrote
" I wrote a published paper supporting GCs over the H-1b. So give me a F'ing break. If you google my name you'll find that paper. "
Ohh man . Finallly u agreed that u r Roy.
Posted by: Lou Dobbs | October 26, 2007 at 01:21 PM
"Interesting that you say that, since 81% of H-1b holders have 4 year degrees, not advanced degrees."
Yes, you're probably right. Just as all H-1B's are not cheap. Some are, because their employers are getting a cut of what they make. Both of us are not completely right. The answer is more complex and involves a lot of different cases. I just wanted you to feel the kind of frustration we feel when someone claims that they know-it-all and dismisses the whole issue as being about cheap labor. We support our arguments based mostly on the tech industry and quite a few H-1B's are not even tech workers. I have friends who are MBAs and are on H-1B as well. With bonus, they make > 200K.
The fact that you are willing to bet that JoeF's job in product development will be outsourced sooner than your's but continue to discourage younger Americans from getting into IT is contradictory. If you think IT consulting has a better future, you would advise them to get into IT consulting instead of product development instead of discouraging them to get into IT altogether. In spite of the brave face you put up, you know that you're waging a losing battle. You're simply buying time till you retire by resisting H-1B reforms.
The inherent nature of IT consulting is that people who hire IT consultants are usually not in the IT business themselves but are looking for short term help without adding to their liabilities. Layoff's may be common in the tech industry but it doesn't help their reputation. You would not be willing to join a company that recently laid off 5K people from a particular division even if you're being hired for some other division. That is why people hire IT consultants, so that they can get the short term projects done and can be let go anytime. If quality was a major concern, they would want to handpick each and every worker and get it done in-house. So, inherently, quality is not the main concern in IT consulting. The main factors are convenience and cost. This, however, is not the case in product development. Which is why JoeF hasn't been laid off in 30 years.
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM
"Most advanced degree holders from the top US schools are foreigners (the best and the brightest), hence most of those entry level jobs are going to H-1B's. "
Interesting that you say that, since 81% of H-1b holders have 4 year degrees, not advanced degrees. Like I said, the numbers don't lie. You understand what I'm saying, but refuse to look at the facts surrounding the issue.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 11:24 AM
"Why is a program for the best in brightest used to fill entry level jobs - especially when, as some of you claim, there is a shortage of these visas? It makes absolutely no sense."
Most new jobs created in the tech industry are entry level jobs. Most advanced degree holders from the top US schools are foreigners (the best and the brightest), hence most of those entry level jobs are going to H-1B's. I know that this will still not make sense to you. Not because you don't understand what I'm saying but because you don't want to.
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 11:21 AM
"As you said, most H-1B's start in entry level jobs. Obviously, their salaries are going to lower than the average."
Why is a program for the best in brightest used to fill entry level jobs - especially when, as some of you claim, there is a shortage of these visas? It makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 11:13 AM
"I can't replace an American history teacher. Be happy."
No, I think that can be outsourced also. We have Philipino teachers in urban schools teaching English. Not talking about those who have lived here for a long time, talking about importing them on visas.
Maybe we can import Communists from China to explain American Government. That would be the ulitmate irony.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 11:05 AM
"If you don't want to be called cheap labor, convince the majority of IT workers on the H-1b to stop working so cheaply. The numbers don't lie."
You need to be able to interpret the numbers. Obviously, they refer to the starting salaries. As you said, most H-1B's start in entry level jobs. Obviously, their salaries are going to lower than the average. Have you tried to find out how much they make after a few years? You'll only know that information if they switched jobs and most people are not switching jobs because getting a GC is taking so long. The flc data is not accurate.
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 11:04 AM
"Umm, better read up on history. Improper use of "Uncle Tom"."
Yes thanks for the correction. I was thinking of what Ali said to an opponent who continued to call him Clay? Got mixed up. You got me there. I can't replace an American history teacher. Be happy.
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 10:53 AM
"How did you think we would react to being called cheap labors in every forum? Do you think we are afraid of getting lynched Uncle Tom?"
Umm, better read up on history. Improper use of "Uncle Tom".
If you don't want to be called cheap labor, convince the majority of IT workers on the H-1b to stop working so cheaply. The numbers don't lie.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM
"my job is secure. I am doing things only relatively few people can do. It is YOUR job that is going to be offshored. If it can be given to a consultant, it can be given to a consultant abroad..."
JoeF: Want to put money on it? Hopefully they pay you enough where you are at to wage a nice gentlemans bet.
Will I shutter my consulting business before your job gets offshored...that could be an interesting wager. In technology, a "special" skill that relatively few people can do could become commoditized over a rather short period of time.
So what is this special skill you have that nobody offshore has?
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 10:42 AM
"Wow, you must really hate American software professionals. Why do you insult hard working people simply fighting to preserve their profession? Ah, maybe you want to destroy their profession. You really want those American jobs, don't you?"
MG, since when did all American s/w folks declare that PG represents them? How many members do they have? Less than 2K right?
I have nothing but respect for my American colleagues. They are really smart and are not afraid of competition. There's no such thing as American jobs. It's limited to the job of POTUS. The constitution mandates that he/she has to be born in the US.
If the PG focussed on improving themselves and competing by starting their own companies, they wouldn't have time to lobby against H-1B's.
How did you think we would react to being called cheap labors in every forum? Do you think we are afraid of getting lynched Uncle Tom?
Posted by: Sid | October 26, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Oh, and MG: my job is secure. I am doing things only relatively few people can do.
It is YOUR job that is going to be offshored. If it can be given to a consultant, it can be given to a consultant abroad...
But that's something they didn't teach you at Price Waterhouse or wherever you were.
Posted by: JoeF | October 26, 2007 at 08:57 AM
"JoeF is clearly a liar and probably here to just flame people."
Is that all you can come up with?
Geez, what a sad existence you must have.
Good-bye, loser.
Posted by: JoeF | October 26, 2007 at 08:53 AM
"The truth is you MAGNIFY the abuses ..."
Since your name is BS, I guess it speaks for itself. There is nothing to magnify - facts are all you need to look at.
The fact is that the top sponsors of H-1b visas are Indian offshoring firms.
The fact is that LCA data indicates most applicants are paid level-1 wages out of a scale to 4.
I don't need to make things up, considering the data available.
" understand your whining aboutH1Bs being brought to learn the job and the jobs being sent out to India etc... why do you and your cohort SH":HEADS at PG lobby to prevent the people currently languishing in H1B from getting green cards...after all they are wanting to stay and their US employers want them to stay ..."
Stop calling hard working people SH heads. How dare you!
I've long pushed for greencards over the H-1b. I supported the IEEE-USA position to allow more greencards. I wrote a published paper supporting GCs over the H-1b. So give me a F'ing break. If you google my name you'll find that paper.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 06:27 AM
>>>Wow, you must really hate American software professionals. Why do you insult hard working people simply fighting to preserve their profession? Ah, maybe you want to destroy their profession. You really want those American jobs, don't you?<<<<
TO THe IDIOT "MIDDLE GROUND"
I've been watching your exchanges....this last post of yours literally gave you away.....YOU are the one pampered idiot living in a fantasy world....and my GOD...you REALLY don'tknow what's going to hit you and the likes of you.
I understand your whining aboutH1Bs being brought to learn the job and the jobs being sent out to India etc... why do you and your cohort SH":HEADS at PG lobby to prevent the people currently languishing in H1B from getting green cards...after all they are wanting to stay and their US employers want them to stay ...
You can prevent us from getting greencards for few more years..you bring less H1bs coming from India..and then what your empire is going to march ahead gloriously??!!
The truth is you MAGNIFY the abuses ...like chicken want protectio from Dick Durbin to keep your job..How long do you think Dick is going to protect you you think??? Once agin it is YOU who REALLY don'tknow what's going to hit you.
Posted by: BS | October 26, 2007 at 06:08 AM
JoeF is clearly a liar and probably here to just flame people.
"But apparently, PwC or one of its predecessor companies put you out to pasture..."
I thought you said I didn't work at PwC? Now you say I did? Guess that makes you inconsistant. I'd just like to point out to everyone that because of this, they can't trust you.
"I don't work in consulting anymore, haven't for 6 years or so. I work in software product development. "
So you couldn't keep up with the tough pace of consulting? I understand. And now I understand why you think product development is such a great thing - you do it. LOL.
You're going to be one of the most surprised sheep going to slaughter when they axe your job and send it to India. Product development is primed to be offshored - and that is why I have you so scared. Because you know it is true.
When they start sending in 20-something H-1b workers from offshore to learn you job, that's when you should really panic. I like you fools the most because you never see it coming. Always in denial.
SID: "Is that what happened to your looser friends at PG?"
Wow, you must really hate American software professionals. Why do you insult hard working people simply fighting to preserve their profession? Ah, maybe you want to destroy their profession. You really want those American jobs, don't you?
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 26, 2007 at 04:58 AM
"They didn't put you out to pasture did they?"
LOL. I don't work in consulting anymore, haven't for 6 years or so. I work in software product development. And I have never been fired...
But apparently, PwC or one of its predecessor companies put you out to pasture...
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 09:37 PM
"Most people that stick around with a single company as a salaried employee lose most of their technical edge. If you want to put your skills out to pasture these days, work for a big company for a long period of time. It's quite sad when these guys lose their jobs and can't get a new one because they don't have current skills. Most of them can't hang with true consultants."
Is that what happened to your looser friends at PG?
Posted by: Sid | October 25, 2007 at 09:34 PM
"JoeF - stop being an idiot. You know that PwC - and predecessor companies - have been around for ages. Of course there have been mergers and acquisitions."
It is obviously you who is the idiot...
PwC has been around since 1998. Its predecessor companies have been around longer. That doesn't change the fact that PwC has been around only since 1998. You said you were at PwC, you didn't say you were at one of its predecessor companies.
PwC has only been around since 1998. You can not have been at PwC before 1998, since it didn't exist at that point. It is irrelevant if you were at one of the predecessor companies, since you clearly stated that you were at PwC.
Are you now saying that you were not at PwC? If that's the case, how many inaccuracies were in the rest of your statements?
If you can't even express yourself clearly in such a small matter, do you think anybody would believe your words in larger matters like the H1?
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expose your inaccurate posts. People are well advised to take anything from you with a whole bucket of salt, in particular your inaccuracies wrt the H1.
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 09:32 PM
JoeF - stop being an idiot. You know that PwC - and predecessor companies - have been around for ages. Of course there have been mergers and acquisitions.
I can't believe we are having this discussion.
Most people that stick around with a single company as a salaried employee lose most of their technical edge. If you want to put your skills out to pasture these days, work for a big company for a long period of time. It's quite sad when these guys lose their jobs and can't get a new one because they don't have current skills. Most of them can't hang with true consultants.
They didn't put you out to pasture did they?
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 25, 2007 at 09:17 PM
And given that you apparently didn't even know when PwC was formed, I venture a guess that you didn't work there at all...
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 08:54 PM
"Now I know you have no clue. PwC has been around in some form since 1849."
PwC was formed in 1998 from Price Waterhouse, and Coopers & Lybrand.
PwC has NOT been around before. Price Waterhouse has, Coopers & Lybrand has. But NOT PwC.
It is obviously you who has no clue. Unlike you, I check my facts, in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PricewaterhouseCoopers
"The firm was created by the merger of three large firms Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand & Lovelock Lewis."
If you meant you were at Price Waterhouse or Coopers & Lybrand, why didn't you say so? Because you play loose with facts, eh? Figures...
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 08:52 PM
"Given that PwC only came into existence 9 years ago"
Now I know you have no clue. PwC has been around in some form since 1849. It's a big 4 accounting firm.
http://www.pwc.com/servlet/pwcPrintPreview?LNLoc=/extweb/aboutus.nsf/docid/15E4F5F3CFDD560E85257203000D82D5
"I object to the logic that young does not equate to the best and the brightest."
It's important to me that you not object with what I say. I don't see how we can move beyond this, since you object.
"you can't be all that experienced running your own company, either."
Yeah, that's really germain to this discussion.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 25, 2007 at 07:58 PM
"I object to the logic that young does not equate to the best and the brightest."
Agreed. A lot of very smart, very young people work on Open Source software. There is the "Google Summer of Code", which are usually undergads, but sometimes even highschool students from all over the world working on improving Open Source.
That's another example of a meritocracy, and that's what matters, not the place of birth.
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 07:54 PM
"JoeF - you don't want to really debate on the facts, or even on what we all know to be true. You just enjoy contradicting people."
No. I just call BS when I see it. It is obvious that you don't like that...
"I find it very hard to believe that you work with H-1b workers, but none of them are young. Unless you are at a VERY small company."
A multi-national, UK and US. Has been around for some 30 years at least (that's when I first heard of them.)
I find it funny that the anti-H1s always have preconceived notions about others. It is hard to "classify" me as X, whatever that X may be. And I like it that way ;-)
You may have worked for Intel, or PwC, but that doesn't mean that you have any clue about H1s. That's just another transparent fallacy.
I can turn it right back: Given that PwC only came into existence 9 years ago, you can't be all that experienced running your own company, either.
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 07:43 PM
"I find it very hard to believe that you work with H-1b workers, but none of them are young. Unless you are at a VERY small company.
We also know that the top sponsors of the visa are Indian offshoring firms. These are facts - deal with it."
MG, what you are saying is not entirely false, that H-1Bs usually tend to be young. The range is probably from 24 - 36 since they either get green cards by that age or go back. The lower limit comes from BS + 2 years of MS or BS + 2 years of work experience. There are lots of exceptions of course. I don't see any compelling reason for a 40 year old programmer to move to the US with his/her family in tow.
I object to the logic that young does not equate to the best and the brightest. A person who gets into a good grad school definitely is amongst the best and the brightest among his/her generation. They are also able to work longer hours and are generally more productive than a 40 year old doing the same kind of work. s/w development is a difficult field to be in. If you don't grow quickly and move into design and system architect positions, it can be tough to compete with younger developers.
Posted by: Sid | October 25, 2007 at 07:11 PM
JoeF - you don't want to really debate on the facts, or even on what we all know to be true. You just enjoy contradicting people.
I find it very hard to believe that you work with H-1b workers, but none of them are young. Unless you are at a VERY small company.
I have worked at Intel, PwC, and other large sponsors of H-1b visas. I think I am qualified to state with authority that most are young - and with entry to mid level experience.
And there are studies on age - I'm not sure how reliable the studies are. I don't know of any source of data from the government (available to the public) that lists age.
What we do know from LCA data is that most are paid level-1 wages. That is the lowest of the 4 levels. If they are the best and brightest, they certainly aren't paid for it.
We also know that the top sponsors of the visa are Indian offshoring firms. These are facts - deal with it.
Posted by: Middle Ground | October 25, 2007 at 06:50 PM
"for god's sake guys, the world is grey in color."
Yeah, but it was you who has tried to paint it in black-and-white.
Everybody but you knows the world is gray.
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 06:46 PM
"Read what JoeF has to say about Americans."
Oh, now you are trying to play that card... You must be really running low on arguments...
Too bad for you that I AM American by now...
Anyway, with that line you have disqualified yourself from any rational discourse. Go get an education.
Posted by: JoeF | October 25, 2007 at 06:41 PM
"Just about all of these kids are barely out of diapers."
BS. None of the H1 people I work with are that age.
"you know there isn't good data on this"
So, why did you claim otherwise then??? It was YOU who stated "according to studies"... Yet another one of these lies you got caught up in...
And peppering your posts with expletives doesn't help your argument, either. "Don't be an idiot" applies more to you than to me.
And "The visa was suppose to be for the best and brightest" since when? The minimum requirement for an H1 is a bachelor degree. It seems you have been listening to anti-H1 propaganda for too long.
"I don't see a shortage of people with entry and mid level skills."
And? Your sentence only makes sense with your unjustified assertion that most H1s are entry level.
And there is a shortage of good mid-level people. I have been interviewing mid-level people for quite some time, just looking for 1-2 people...
Posted by: | October 25, 2007 at 06:38 PM