>> import hundreds of thousands of foreigners to replace their American workers
Oh FFS. Stopped reading there. I don't know what incentives are there for hiring immigrants. Immigration is hard and you end up with a less flexible employee. Immigrants are getting hired because they're people, and they happen to be people who are qualified for the jobs.
I also hate the argument that somehow an American deserves or needs the job more than an immigrant. Creating a job is a great thing, no matter where the person is from.
I am an American, and love my country and plan on living here my whole life. I want my country to be successful, and I buy into a lot of the values that are quintessentially 'American'.
However, I still find it strange to think someone who happens to be born inside the borders of America somehow deserves a job more than someone born outside the borders.
It always seems quite arbitrary - I mean, I am also a Californian, but I don't get upset if someone hires a Floridian instead of a Californian. I live in Los Angeles, but I don't get upset if someone hires a person from San Diego.
It's not about who deserves something. It's about obligations.
USA (as society and as government) is obliged to care more about Americans' well-being than it is about all other people in the world's well-being. If this stops, you have no society, just government and a bad one at that. Trust somebody who lives in a "state" like that.
I guess I think of society as being larger than the state these days. I can interact with, share, befriend, and work with people in another country just as quickly and easily as I can with someone living in the same country (case in point, this conversation here). Our state borders do not define our society.
Yeah but you mainly hear it from the right, who usually claims they believe in the free market, but then wants special treatment for all their business interests under the law. If you believe in the free market, go ahead and compete with cheap labor elsewhere in the world by specializing. If you don't believe in the free market, stop calling all your political opponents socialists like you think that's a bad thing. (and by you I mean right-wing America, not you)
Eh, the tact was definitely off, but the message still holds some some truth. I've worked at my fair share of large companies and the mark of a shift of events towards misery, dread and outage galore is when h1b becomes more widespread combined with folks getting replaced with other folk out of Hyderabad/Bangalore/etc. There's also a lot to be said for ensuring that the local workforce has exposure to technical work to build local skill.
Some of the most talented, smartest and hardest working folk I've met hold h1bs, so I'm not opposed to the idea by any means, just the current state and the implementation that got us here. Those same guys also say that they feel like they're pinned to jobs they often loathe since they'll be kicked out of the country if they quit - even after getting a degree here.
It's important to note that they are specifically talking about H1B labor. And H1Bs are not technically immigrants. The H1B visa is a temporary guest-worker program.
Now, the question is, why are tech companies asking for an expansion of the H1B program rather than simply asking for more green cards? The answer, of course, is that H1Bs are easier to abuse and underpay.
This isn't a simple case of "immigrants stealing our jobs." The H1B program does a lot to suppress tech wages, and I'd like to see the path to citizenship eased. I don't see any reason companies should be able to keep guest workers in the country for more than a couple years before sponsoring them for a full green card.
Having a less flexible employee is a real upside for certain notorious companies. Having an employee who can't leave your company or they get kicked out of the country? That's a situation ripe for abuse.
Does anyone else also find the following statement plainly stupid:
>H1B immigrant labor from India has clearly become a "strategic" sourcing model for tech giants as in the past 2 years as both Microsoft & Google have appointed CEOs and other executives from India--while backing open borders, pro H1B tech lobby FWD.us.
Does the author really think the two Indian ex-pats were made CEOs of respective companies because of their country of origin?
I don't think they're saying Nadella was hired because of his country of origin, but rather they would have preferred an American to have risen brought the ranks to be in Nadella's position.
> Think of us as your 'side project' to drive better corporate citizenship in big tech.
And now we know why their list of sins doesn't include unpaid/underpaid internships as gateways to employment that few outside of well of backgrounds can afford to take?
They also make a pitch for corporate sponsors, saying they will call out their competitors:
Sponsorship "means we've got your back, and we'll shine our light on any and all unfair & harmful competitive practices that unethically impede your growth."
This makes no sense: "While simultaneously, big tech engages in non-productive stock buybacks to prop up valuations with cash resources better used for new R&D or M&A"
What?! It isn't like the money used in a stock buyback just disappears from the economy. That money will be turned around and invested in some other company, that might actually needs money and has a purpose to use it for. That is how the economy works.
It is much better at a macroeconomic level for a company to return cash that it doesn't feel it can efficiently use to its investors, rather than try to chase some investment that won't have a good return just because you have the money.
This whole site seems pretty lacking in terms of understanding of how things work.
I think the point they make is that while the money doesn't disappear from the economy, it does disappear from the company (often funded by savings from layoffs), and disproportionately benefits the execs, rather than the workers (and sometimes to the detriment of the company, when the money would actually be better spent on CapEx).
But I like the word! Disruption that's malicious, or creates more issues than it solves.
Then again, not sure I know of any actual misruption - closest I can think of is the lack of career for Uber/Lyft drivers, and that Oculus will cause eye issues in kids and the VR industry learned that in the 80s.
While some points this raises are valid, there is a lot h1b fear mongering. Also, this site seems to be basically for americans and non-americans are explicitly unwelcome.
> Big tech's dangerous and irresponsible promotion of artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous vehicles, consumer drones, virtual reality, robotics, digital 'implants' and many other emerging technologies now borders on the obscene.
Arguments of sophistry and nationalism are not data, but bias. None deserve preference for the accident of birth. Over the whole course of the human experience, the idea of nation is a distinction sans difference.
30 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 72.8 ms ] threadOh FFS. Stopped reading there. I don't know what incentives are there for hiring immigrants. Immigration is hard and you end up with a less flexible employee. Immigrants are getting hired because they're people, and they happen to be people who are qualified for the jobs.
Somebody should fork their site and edit out all the Falling Down (1993 film) moments.
You can't help others when you, firstly, don't help yourself.
Non-American here.
However, I still find it strange to think someone who happens to be born inside the borders of America somehow deserves a job more than someone born outside the borders.
It always seems quite arbitrary - I mean, I am also a Californian, but I don't get upset if someone hires a Floridian instead of a Californian. I live in Los Angeles, but I don't get upset if someone hires a person from San Diego.
I guess I think of society as being larger than the state these days. I can interact with, share, befriend, and work with people in another country just as quickly and easily as I can with someone living in the same country (case in point, this conversation here). Our state borders do not define our society.
Some of the most talented, smartest and hardest working folk I've met hold h1bs, so I'm not opposed to the idea by any means, just the current state and the implementation that got us here. Those same guys also say that they feel like they're pinned to jobs they often loathe since they'll be kicked out of the country if they quit - even after getting a degree here.
Now, the question is, why are tech companies asking for an expansion of the H1B program rather than simply asking for more green cards? The answer, of course, is that H1Bs are easier to abuse and underpay.
This isn't a simple case of "immigrants stealing our jobs." The H1B program does a lot to suppress tech wages, and I'd like to see the path to citizenship eased. I don't see any reason companies should be able to keep guest workers in the country for more than a couple years before sponsoring them for a full green card.
If we need more workers then we need more citizens, cut and dry. There shouldn't be this grey in-between - it is a crack that too many fall through.
>H1B immigrant labor from India has clearly become a "strategic" sourcing model for tech giants as in the past 2 years as both Microsoft & Google have appointed CEOs and other executives from India--while backing open borders, pro H1B tech lobby FWD.us.
Does the author really think the two Indian ex-pats were made CEOs of respective companies because of their country of origin?
(I personally think Nadella's an excellent CEO)
> Think of us as your 'side project' to drive better corporate citizenship in big tech.
And now we know why their list of sins doesn't include unpaid/underpaid internships as gateways to employment that few outside of well of backgrounds can afford to take?
:)
Sponsorship "means we've got your back, and we'll shine our light on any and all unfair & harmful competitive practices that unethically impede your growth."
What?! It isn't like the money used in a stock buyback just disappears from the economy. That money will be turned around and invested in some other company, that might actually needs money and has a purpose to use it for. That is how the economy works.
It is much better at a macroeconomic level for a company to return cash that it doesn't feel it can efficiently use to its investors, rather than try to chase some investment that won't have a good return just because you have the money.
This whole site seems pretty lacking in terms of understanding of how things work.
But I like the word! Disruption that's malicious, or creates more issues than it solves.
Then again, not sure I know of any actual misruption - closest I can think of is the lack of career for Uber/Lyft drivers, and that Oculus will cause eye issues in kids and the VR industry learned that in the 80s.
I see this initiative is run by luddites.
Arguments of sophistry and nationalism are not data, but bias. None deserve preference for the accident of birth. Over the whole course of the human experience, the idea of nation is a distinction sans difference.