I rarely comment but this story makes me happy enough to do so. I'm a former H1-B with an American Masters degree in STEM. I think this conviction will go a long way in making the system fairer.
Here is what happened. H1-Bs must be legally employed all (well most of) the time they are in the USA. To get past that rule, these H1-B shops act as employers and then farm out the employees to other companies. Employers need to pay H1-Bs at least the prevailing wage that is mentioned in their H1-B application. This employer did not. Instead, they reduced wages when the employees were on the bench. That is the violation that they have been convicted for. So this conviction is not that much about H1-B's replacing American workers as much as it is about an unethical employer paying his employees less than the promised wage.
Usually, people who join this kind of shop are people who have not been able to land a direct employer on their own and desperately want to stay in the USA. This judgment will go a long way in correcting the system because now all shops (and there are many!) that run this scam will close down. That, in turn, will decrease the number of people who end up applying for H1-Bs without a real employer. Hopefully, that will improve the perception around genuine H1-B VISA holders.
I am in the same boat (bachelors + masters from US universities and on H-1B).
I've been in the US for almost 10 years now since undergrad and have put down roots (friends, acquaintances, credit history, etc). It is very unfair for us to be put into the same bucket as body shop labor from India. I personally know several people who were forced to leave the US because they didn't get chosen in the H-1B lottery.
There needs to be a new visa that caters specifically to those in our situation. USCIS needs to let the consultancy companies and body shops compete among themselves for H-1B and stop screwing law-abiding international students who have devoted 4-6 (or more) years of their lives to living in the US, who suddenly might lose everything they've worked for because of the H-1B lottery.
Serious question - I don't in any way intend this to sound inflammatory. If you've been here almost 10 years and have set down roots, why haven't you just applied to be a citizen? It sounds like you want to stay, and frankly, it sounds like it would be good for us to have you. Is there something holding you back beyond just personal preference? (Or are you already in the process but haven't completed it?)
IIRC, an H-1B can't apply to be a citizen, you have to be a permanent resident to do that, which you can only do from an immigrant visa. The H-1B is a "dual purpose" visa, which is a non-immigrant visa that doesn't require you to leave the country before applying for an immigrant visa, but you still have to qualify for one of the immigrant visa categories and make it through any source-country-specific backlog for that category. (And the vast majority of tech-industry H-1B's are from India, which is also near the top for waiting list length in many of the immigrant categories -- including all but one of the Employment-based categories.)
Foreigners can't apply to be a citizen just because they've been here for 10 years. The US immigration system is so f*cked up and the current administration favors illegal immigrants over legal ones.
The most common pathway for those who complete their studies in the US and want to remain in the country to work is to obtain a work visa (H-1, L-1, TN, etc) under employer sponsorship. And then, some of these visas permit immigrant intent i.e. your employer can sponsor your green card even though you're technically on a temporary worker visa.
I'd love to get permanent residency and possibly citizenship. The framework in place right now is tedious and frankly, outright hostile to those of us doing everything right to remain in this country. Thankfully, I'm not from one of the countries with huge visa backlogs - I can only imagine their pain.
One thing that helps at least is that the H1B lottery cap doesn't apply to students who got a graduate degree in the US. ie there are unlimited H1B visas for people in that boat.
But then only H1Bs from Silicon Valley would get accepted, because that's where they pay the most. Other states, and even other cities in California (like Los Angeles) would suffer from the lack of opportunity to hire immigrants.
If salaries in those areas are not as high as in the Bay Area, it means there is no shortage. It just means the salaries are too low to attract talent.
There are plenty of companies outside the Bay Area that pay comparable salaries. I have first or very close second hand experience with LA, Chicago, Seattle, Colorado, and New York. If other companies want to hire foreigners they should be willing to pay more.
They can still hire devs. They just need to pay more. Total comp is not adjusted for cost of living for doctors, salesmen, traders, bankers, attorneys, and managers. Why do you expect it to be adjusted for software developers? This is less than intuitive for me.
It's a way of justifying keeping salaries as low as possible for engineers, but somehow managing to cough up more money in some locations. An equally good engineer in Chicago should be worth the same amount as an engineer in SF, but they're paid less... simply because the employer has more negotiating power in both cases. In both cases, the employer pays enough to give the engineer a reasonably good living for the local cost of living, because that's what's needed to incentivize them to work... a natural minimum incentive. If engineers demanded more, they'd get more.
Yes, and it's the same point I'm trying to defend against a communistic idea of some kind of universal "value" of labour which is equal regardless of location or circumstances.
Some people think that employees should be paid somewhat proportionally to the amount of value they provide to their employer. If you accept that, then a good engineer should always get about the same amount of money, regardless of the cost of living, because they always produce a similar amount of value for the company.
Value is subjective: it's determined as agreement between seller and buyer. Engineer of the same ability is more valuable for an average SF company than an average Chicago company.
I don't know if that is true. A cursory glance at compensation statistics seems to indicate wide regional variance in the compensation in all these professions.
And, for me at least, intuitively it makes sense as well, but I don't want to argue intuition here.
Your causality is backwards. San Francisco doesn't pay high salaries because the cost of living is high; if that model obtained, San Francisco would immediately turn into a ghost town. The cost of living is high in San Francisco because of the high salaries.
1. There might be a feedback mechanism between the two since high salaries could lead to high cost of living which in turn means that companies have to offer higher salaries etc.
2. The higher salaries don't explain the entire cost of living story since cost of living has risen faster than salaries.
3. Cost of living -- primarily the cost of housing -- seems to spike after certain events. IPOs, or other large liquidity events.
Arguably the effect goes the other way: engineers are more productive in SF, so they're worth paying more in SF. (If that weren't the case, then you wouldn't be able to pay engineers enough to want to live there while still making s profit.)
So the GP's policy would still fit the spirit of the H1B program, which is to allow slots for high-output roles.
The reason I gave in the post: if it were not the case, you could not bid a high enough wage to both a) make a profit and b) produce a discretionary income attractive to engineers.
If you want a further explanation of why that is, then I would say that it's the proximity to related talent and investors adapted to this kind of work.
Edit: In case it wasn't just a clever attempt at synecdoche: it can't be proximity to the Golden Gate bridge per se that increases productivity, because the North Beach/Marina/Marin tech jobs pay less than SoMa and SV tech jobs.
Well sucks to be those states. If those states want to compete, then maybe they should offer hire salaries. Why do they "deserve" to have cheap employees, but not other areas?
That will make company like MS/Google/FB/AMAZN, invincible. Startups are going to be starved. They will not have that much leverage to recruit desired talents.
I think what he means is, startups can't deal with the uncertainty and lead times the current H-1B system imposes.
Large companies just project how many openings they would have in October next year, hire appropriately, and park them in offshore offices if they didn't make the lottery. And they can afford the application fee too
I don't work for a startup, but I do work for a small business. The current system does not work for us because there is a lot of uncertainty in the application process. An auction system would actually be an improvement for us and many other small businesses.
So what? If big companies are economically more efficient, let them have the workers. Nobody should be forced to work for a poor company that can't pay up.
The current system also puts small companies at a disadvantage. I work at a tiny company that pays more than the companies you listed and we have a lot of difficulty getting new H1Bs.
If we had an auction style system then at least small companies would have the opportunity to pay more and get access to foreign labor. In the current system, this is not even an option so companies like mine are disadvantaged with no recourse. Startups could always hire native workers or hire foreign workers offshore.
otoh, artificially allowing startups to get cheap engineers means that these or some other engineers are deprived of an opportunity to make a lot more money at Google/Facebook. Engineers are thus being exploited by unethical employers flooding the system
In addition, I hope that we can somehow figure out a way to give visas to STEM graduate degree earners over ones employed by such shops. That segment seems significantly underserved by the current system and it's resulting in a reverse brain drain away from the country even though we are investing in their education.
I don't like the idea of further endorsing and supporting credentialism.
If you can get a high salary, then you're in demand and we should keep you. If you have a STEM degree but can't even get a good job, then I don't see any reason to grant a visa.
I'm not sure that it makes sense to target STEM graduates in this way. Most of them would receive visas based on their high salaries whereas an explicit rule would only serve to increase the number of low quality STEM degrees.
Yeah that did cross my mind, and now that it's been brought up, I'm inclined to think you are right.
I just learned that a bunch of acquaintances lost out on their H1B lotteries and will be shipped out of the country to international offices once their OPT terms end in 1-2 months. Since they were employed by strong companies, their salaries likely would have been high enough to qualify them for H1B visas under a system you propose.
This idea is still predicated on the 'magic number' that the government has more or less randomly picked to be the number of H1B visas in a year. This number is, of course, far smaller than the number of family and other types of visas.
Making it easy to switch jobs will also go a long way in making this system much better.
Right now, the consultancy firms flood the application pool hoping to get few selected. They eat the cost of sending all the applications because they see it as an investment - they know that they can milk the few who get selected for many years and recoup many multiples of their initial investment.
Tying the H-1B to the employee not the employer will put an end to such abuses.
This would make it easier to game, especially for wealthy immigrants who want to buy a visa to get a green card.
Also the H1B visa is for hundreds of different job classifications at different prevailing wages - are you saying there should be an auction for each? How will visas be distributed fairly amongst them?
Those people are a small portion of H1B visas, if at all, and all it means that instead of a %50 to %100 chance that they get it 'this year' doing it, it's a %100 chance. They also have other options like an L1 visa which is another %100 chance in a year and then can get a green card at the highest priority level as an international executive afterwards. Or they can open a mcdonalds franchise somewhere in a bad part of america and get a E visa for a $500k investment. The wealthy have many options to immigrate. And if they are wealthy they can do this with real corporations too since wealthy people have wealthy friends.
Gamebility by the 'wealthy' would be the least of their worries in this case. Most H1-B abuse are body shops such as infosys. 'Price' auctions would be a good improvement for employees, although it would concentrate the visas into places like SF & NYC even further.
On top of that, a US passport isn't attractive to the already wealthy. The US has high income tax rates relative to many other places and you can never escape it by moving out, unlike all other citizenships in the world. The already wealthy would move to london, monaco, switzerland or maybe dubai if their goal was wealth preservation.
Less than 7% of approved H1B visas last year were with Infosys, HCL, and Cognizant - the three major H1B abusers. The remaining 93% were legitimate hires that would be priced out by the wealthy if there were a way for the wealthy to buy their visas.
Just because there is a problem that doesn't justify moving to a solution that destroys it. It's better strengthen enforcement so that fines can be used to make it expensive for abusers (like what happened in the article), rather than price out talent that isn't just in finance or high paying fields.
The wealthy can already buy their way into a US visa. I am in an immigrant community where this happens. Quite frankly, I think those programs should also be expanded.
Wealthy immigrants can obtain investor visa easier outside of the H1B pool (EB-5).
There is no reason why H1B should be distributed fairly, because the US has a green card lottery that is diversified across various jobs and countries anyway.
The EB-5 requires starting a company and employing 10+ at >$50k/yr, meaning it costs $500,000+. Do you honestly think the H1B visa will bid higher than $500k/yr for base pay for the employee?
The lottery evenly distributes amongst the positions based on demand. By switching to wealth, you're creating a system that only the highest-paying job categories will prevail.
But most of the people use a regional center [1] to park the $500k is a big real estate project like Hunter's Point Shipyard in SF or Hudson Yards in New York with no additional yearly cost.
I am in an immigrant community where the EB5 is used. It does not cost $500k/year and it is an investment rather than a expense so it is not all comparable to the H1B program.
We're referring to what it would cost for bad actors to abuse the system. Someone was saying that switching to a biddable H1B visa would solve problems because it's just like the EB5.
You're aware that not every H1B is a developer right? Your proposal would change the whole basis of the program in a way that doesn't seem particularly thought out.
What about people who are botanists, or harpsichord teachers?
You could have separate categories for non profit and academic positions.
But for positions in private industry, I don't care. If you really, really need a foreign employee over a domestic one, you will need to pay the H1B premium, competing with everyone else.
It's more fair than a system based on luck, or arbitrary criteria of review board or something guaranteed to be games and manipulated.
But the goal of the system isn't fairness, it's to provide needed skills to American businesses. It sounds like you're looking at this from the perspective of a job-seeking foreign national, but that's not actually a constituency here, they aren't American, don't vote, and our government is not intending to help them with this program.
The supposed point is to make sure American companies can compete. The idea of only allowing the very highest paid foreign workers in, and them all being software developers, has literally nothing to do with that goal.
SEC. 103. SPECIAL RULE FOR UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH FACILITIES, AND GRADUATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS; COUNTING RULES.
Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at--
(A) an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or
(B) a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization.
Easy fix -- give the visas to the highest paid people in each job category. After you've gone through each category once, do it again for the next highest paid. Eventually you'll run out of harpsichord teachers and so the more popular categories would keep getting filled until the quota was reached.
Then you get highly paid people and you get a nice cross section of skillsets, and it incentivizes the companies to pay the highest wage for that skill.
> Hopefully, that will improve the perception around genuine H1-B VISA holders.
This. As a fairly paid H1B (I have discussed salary openly with my American coworkers), I always cringe when stories like the Disney one come up, because I feel like the next day a couple of them are going to be saying, "Ugh, there's the H1B that's taking our jobs away".
For this reason, I hope all the fraudulent H1B companies are pushed out of business with strict penalties. Also I really wish there were some sane laws around H1B (sorting priority by salary relative to prevailing wage, untying employers from the visa, etc.)
I think it is yet another point showing how broken our immigration / vIsa program is. This sort of blackmarket style operation would never have existed in the first place if the talanted non US (calling them aliens seems dehumanizing and encourages the us vs them mentality) workers could easily and affordably get permission to work here
We don't know. There those who in it and there are some who are brought in on different terms and then the rules changed on them. Anyway this will make it easier to enforce because both sides can prove their point by showing bank records of payment. By give the employee sufficient leverage and the employer criminal penalties, it puts the employer on guard to do things correctly and legally.
A much better solution would to remove any barriers an H1B worker has to shop for a better job. If we want to live an egalitarian society, it's in our collective interest for immigrants to earn as much as the rest of us. That only happens when we dismantle systems that provide an incentive to exploit immigrants.
You're describing the entire framework of immigration, from green cards to citizenship, which already exists. You can say the H1B component should be removed, but business leaders will cry bloody murder if a whiff of that legislation ever crosses the transom.
The main problem with the current system is that there is no way for a H-1B holder to progress to a Green Card without employer sponsorship. This puts all the power in the hands of the employer with such sponsorships difficult to get these days.
A better solution would be to allow a H-1B worker in good standing to convert to a green card after 4 years without any kind of employer sponsorship needed.
This would bring the US in line with other developed countries that typically allow temporary workers to convert to permanent residents after a period of time independent of their employer.
Guess what the user meant is to make it easy for people on H1B to switch jobs which currently isn't. This makes so many employees to be at the jobs though low paying so as to keep their status in US.
You can, but if you have a green card application in process, you'll have to start all over again, unless it was in its final stage. This can easily put you back by several years.
The fundamental problem is that US simply doesn't have a well-designed skilled worker immigration track, the way e.g. Canada or Australia do. H1B fills that niche in practice, but it was clearly not designed for it, and so there are all these warts.
You realize that a person doesn't have to belong to the Illuminati as a precondition to lobby for special or opaque legislation, right? The only precondition intent needs is a conflict of interest.
Look at Intuit. A number of years back, California piloted a program that simplified filing tax returns for people opting to take the standard deduction. They would mail you a form that was prefilled so you could simply sign it and mail it back. Intuit lobbied to kill it and won. No laws were broken. They were simply acting in the interest of their shareholders.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is one of many lobbying groups that represents 13,000 members. Many of these members help the 80,000 some H1B applicants through the process and can charge legal fees in the ballpark of $10,000 to do that. Assuming all 80,000 applicants spent $10,000 in legal fees, we're talking about ~$1bn market on top for that type of work alone. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a lot, but it's one component that can create a conflict of interest.
Let's assume the AILA is an upstanding group and all of the lobbyists they hire are ethical boy scouts. They would never influence our legislators to intentionally complicate laws to serve their members. Instead, they would recognize that it's in our nation's best interest that our immigration systems are robust, thorough and comprehensive. They'd also emphasize that their members provide a critical service to sherpa honest immigrants through this thoroughly comprehensive system.
You don't need to be behind a ridiculous conspiracy to influence legislation to serve your best interests. These days, you're way better off being transparent and operating under an ethical framework.
As a Canadian expat in Qatar, who is on a third lap around the world, I can assure you that there are many excellent and terrible places to live in the world. This fixation on America that I keep seeing everywhere is absolutely baffling. Maybe I should check it out ;)
So this conviction is not that much about H1-B's replacing American workers as much as it is about an unethical employer paying his employees less than the promised wage.
Though, the two are deeply entwined. If you prevent this kind of exploitation, using H1-B's as a source of cheap labor (and thus cheap American worker replacements) becomes less feasible.
I like the concept but I can see a few potential problems with the idea.
Firstly this would give universities the power to print green cards. That's a power they probably shouldn't have.
Secondly I really don't think there is a shortage of scientists or mathematicians so STEM is probably a suboptimal group to apply this policy. I personally know a person with a masters in geophysics who drives for lyft. Ask a recent biology major about their job prospects, etc.
I work for this such type of consulting shop abroad (first world), supposedly best in the country and earn same as average Uber driver.
I think the model is not limited to the US. There are plenty of people willing to have abroad experience, but it does demotivate you to certain degree.
I can imagine market geophysics specialists is extremely tiny.
Thank you for clarifying. I think one of the biggest problems with immigration in the U.S. is that citizens aren't that knowledgeable in the H1B approval process, and tend to attribute these abusers to all H1B sponsors.
If they made the H1-B system fairer for the immigrant workers, so that they their employability wasn't tied to a sponsorship, it would actually be better for American workers.
How?
Because H1-B employees cannot transfer out easily and live in fear of losing their jobs, because it means packing up and going home. (I can only imagine how much managerial abuse and in the worst case, sexual harassment this situation can lead to.) Employers love this arrangement, because it allows lower wages (the H1B worker isnt going to fight for a higher salary because he knows its dangerous to walk without another sponsor lined up.) and this pseudo indentured servitude arrangement makes for dependable employees.
Now if they took that away those restrictions, salaries would increase and employers would have no incentive to hire an immigrant over a local worker.
Not that I'm in favor of the current system, but your argument is flawed.
How?
Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone. This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship. So, what you are really advocating is that people without jobs can remain in-country "off-visa". This is not the purpose of the H1-B program.
So, if you were to allow this, yet still keep the notion of H1-B sponsorship alive, then there would be the source of the net increase of available workers.
Now, you could make arguments about lowering the expense and friction involved for sponsoring companies, which would then increase the appeal of H1-B visa holders and make finding new sponsors easier. That would probably go further in the direction of increased salaries you mentioned, so long as you kept the visa-holder cap constant. But, of course, part of the reason for this cost/friction is to provide companies with incentives to source labor locally before looking to non-U.S. labor markets.
>>This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship.
It doesn't technically restrict them, but the window for changing jobs is so short that the employees are practically anchored to the employer.
In addition to the short window, changing jobs during H1B also resets the immigrant's place in the green card queue, which can cost them years and years of progress they have made towards permanent residency and citizenship.
You claim that if H1B workers could stay in the country without jobs, it would put downward pressure on wages. I disagree. The current system already places downward pressure: since H1B workers are anchored to their sponsor employer, they have close to zero leverage in salary negotiations. If they could change jobs freely and at their own leisure (during the course of their visa) then they could shop around and go to the highest paying employer.
I was referring to the downward pressure on all wages (and U.S. workers in particular), not those of H1-B holders. This (and my entire comment) was a rebuttal of the GP and should be read in that context. Having workers stay in the country without jobs increases labor supply, which means lower wages for U.S. workers, contrary to the GP's counter-intuitive assertion. It's simple supply and demand.
But, in general, what you're describing is not the intent of the H1-B program. The purpose of that program is to allow companies to "import" supplemental labor in certain specialty fields when there is no local talent available.
It is specifically a non-immigrant visa. However, people have subsequently come to view it as an immigration path and, hence the "binding" to a sponsor as unfair. But, if you go back to the original intent, the worker has agreed to enter the country at the pleasure of their sponsor.
Now, if you want to do away with the H1-B concept, allow companies to hire anyone from anywhere, and allow those workers to switch employers at will, then OK. But, you have to call it something else and assess the impact accordingly. That takes us back to increased labor supply and lower wages for all. There are people who don't like that idea.
It's obviously unpopular to say this, but that makes it no less true. And, if you really want to address the abuses or find a more equitable situation for visa holders, then you have to start by acknowledging the current reality.
Dual intent is a United States immigration law concept. It generally
refers to the fact that certain U.S. visas allow foreigners to be
temporarily present in the U.S. with lawful status and immigrant
intent. This allows those visa holders, particularly H-1B
professionals, to enter the U.S. while simultaneously seeking
lawful permanent resident status (green card status) at a port
of entry. Otherwise, visa holders may be presumed to have
immigrant intent and can be kept from entry (summarily excluded)
as a matter of law.
The original intent of the H1B program does not matter. It was created for a specific purpose but has since evolved to fulfill other goals. What matters is that, ultimately, it is in the USA's best interest to have skilled and educated people from all over the world to join its population and contribute to its economy. It is one of the mechanisms through which it can stay ahead of other countries. That's why the H1B program has become one of the paths to citizenship.
What it has not evolved into is an unconditional, open door to citizenship or permanent residence.
Sorry, but if you want to fix the problems created by the program, then you have to scrap it and call the new thing something else. But, as long as it is tethered to filling specialty needs of certain companies as the core justification for holders being in-country, then you have sponsorship. And, with sponsorship comes the problems many decry.
I'm not sure why any of this is controversial. The program itself may be controversial, but simply stating what it is ought not to be.
>>What it has not evolved into is an unconditional, open door to citizenship or permanent residence.
It isn't an unconditional open door. That's why there's a separate application process for Green Card that's independent from the work visa, and not everyone is accepted.
> In addition to the short window, changing jobs during H1B also resets the immigrant's place in the green card queue, which can cost them years and years of progress they have made towards permanent residency and citizenship.
The place is line is left intact. But the immigrant has to start over the green card process, which can get arbitrarily delayed due to any number of bureaucratic reasons. This adds needless friction to the job market.
>...which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone
This is a common misconception about the H1B program.
In order to be approved for sponsorship, the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens who are for working the same job in the same area. If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule, then you're only creating your own hypothetical problems.
Ideally as long as the prevailing wage rule is in place and enforcement (like in this article) works, then there shouldn't be a need for artificial restrictions like the lottery - and you won't have wages being driven down.
>the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens
Not exactly: "You must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for your occupation, whichever is higher." [0]
See [1] for info in your area, and you'll understand the potential for taking some latitude with this rule.
>If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule...
Not sure who is proposing loosening this one rule. My point to the GP was only that removing or significantly loosening the sponsorship rule would not lead to an increase in wages for all, as he/she claimed.
The point still stands that the immigrants are getting paid at least what citizens are getting paid, which means wages are not going to get driven down.
No. The point doesn't still stand. It never stood.
All else held constant, increased labor supply means lower wages for all. So, the prevailing wage goes down for everyone. Sure, companies have to pay everyone equally, so everyone just gets paid less.
It's simple supply and demand. I think some are taking these simple statements of fact as some sort of anti-immigrant rant or advocacy of the current H1-B policy. It's not. But, if you want to fix it, you first have to understand it.
It is a pretty simple supply and demand curve, but again you're intentionally ignoring the facts about prevailing wage (PW) and operating under the same misconception.
H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs. That means that there is not additional supply for below PW jobs. If anything, the PW goes up because of the increased liquidity for supplying above average wages. This problem you're trying to fabricate is precisely what the PW rule successfully prevents.
The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself?
Edit: I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?
>the problem is you're still operating under the same misconception that all demand is met by H1B supply (which is false)
>H1B visas are only approved for the average or above average job wage
>Hence wages are not going to go down because there is no supply for below-average wages.
Wow. This is pretty tortured logic.
OK, what I am saying is that when you increase the supply of workers in an industry, the wages in that industry will go down. Whether it's a high or low wage industry, the wages will go lower.
Until now, I haven't been speaking to the impact on wages in other industries, however, I fail to see how decreased wages in one industry would not lead to a decrease in the overall cross-industry wage average. It's simple math.
In fact, the impact of higher wage earners losing a percentage of their income would have an outsized deleterious effect on overall wages vs. lower wage workers losing that same percentage.
EDIT: You've updated your comment three or four times, and you seem to be contorting a bit. So, I will just leave my comment as-is along with the quotes from one of your previous revisions.
>I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?
Yes, you're absolutely right. And this comment makes it four responses, so that means you must be extra-right. There's simply no other explanation.
So, you obviously completely understand now. Very impressive!
> Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone.
It works exactly that way. Walmart employees get paid less because supply (everyone is qualified to do this job) outstrips demand and walmart can then just pick the cheapest applicants.
In the tech industry the opposite happens. Demand is higher than supply so you're forced to hire somebody who already has a job. The only way to convince them to switch is by paying them more than they already make.
People usually consume a significant part of their income, so they create more demand.
Also, aggregate demand has more to do with central bank policies than the real economy.
Yes, in each particular occupation, an influx of people willing to work for less might lower salaries in that occupation (compare game programing vs CRUD apps; or magazine journalism vs lawyers), but that doesn't exert downward pressure on everyone's wages.
In addition, if it's easy to start up new competing companies, the employers are forced to pass on the savings.
I suppose the main rebuttal is that, if the program enforced an earning requirement of > $100k (or so depending on state) regardless of position, it would not affect a net increase in the available labor pool for a large section of workers.
I had a friend at HP - who worked in a group arranging for "tourists" to staff HP projects. It was a "secret" group offsite from HQ and they got lists of major development projects. Then they worked with recruiters worldwide to find staff. They would arrange cars at the airport, long term hotels, and rotated teams in and out of the country to keep the project going. They did this for years and years.
We need some real laws with real enforcement. Right now, there are too many ways to evade the H1B program. My understanding it that most foreign workers aren't using that program - and that other programs were specifically set up with minimal monitoring in order to provide a way to get around the H1B program. So the numbers of foreign workers being reported is a complete fiction.
I think if H1-B, and skilled visas in general, was truly about skill level and best fit, fine. However, every situation (like Disney) where visas are used to bring in labor to be trained to replace technical workers who may not necessarily be the HN crowd, but are a vital part of business, should be disallowed. If a company wants to offshore, fine, but it shouldn't use the Visa system to have workers being replaced training their replacements.
I don't really know if skill level should be the only consideration. I think that every country has an obligation to consider its citizens. I'm not saying that citizenship should be the only consideration - but I do think that it should be a strong one. Here in the US, I know many technical people who hit mid-forties and couldn't find a job anymore, in spite of having great technical skills. So maybe there should be some obligation to make sure that a country's citizens are doing OK before allowing skill to be the primary consideration? I don't know -- but I do know that something is wrong with the way we're doing it now.
I personally hate the H1-B/visa system for anything but skilled graduates being targeted for specific roles. I also hate the loss of the social contract where companies actually invested employees and helped them grow.
IBM, Disney and others are trying for a race to the bottom.
I also know that it is incumbent on people in our field to stay on top of things, continue to learn, etc. But not everywhere has the same access to knowledge (or may not know how to find it) as those of us already naturally curious.
In no form should Visas be granted to bring workers over to be trained by those replacing them. Unless maybe it's something insane like $100k/head going into training programs. But, that's all fantasy on my part.
That does sound similar. One difference I notice - my friend's boss met routinely with executive staff and senior managers at HP to go over future projects. They all made an effort to keep their entire organization secret - even renting offices to do the development off-site in the Bay Area. I have no doubt that HP's use of tourist visas for staffing was well known to all their executives. I do know that HP was working on a lot of secret defense department programs at the time - I wonder how many of those secret military programs were actually implemented by foreign nationals hidden away at HP?
This abuse of the H-1B program also hurts the many students attending US universities, hoping to gain work experience here post graduation.
Remember that the number of H-1B visas granted every year are capped. Plenty of students from top US universities (and often at the top of their class) cannot accept jobs (or only do so for a very short term under the F-1 OPT program) for which they are the most qualified candidate because they cannot attain the right to work.
The big tech companies in the Bay area may initially hire recent international student graduates on F-1 OPT status and then attempt to apply for their H-1B. If this fails the common approach is to move them to Europe (usually Dublin) to work there for a year. After that time they can return on L-1 (company internal transfer) visas.
Note that these candidates are extremely competitive in terms of performance, don't replace anyone, and are paid the same kind of salaries as any other highly qualified individuals.
I can verify this is true - I have a friend at Facebook in Menlo Park caught in this situation (he is an engineer still on a student visa, graduated from a top CS program), so he is moving to London for at least an year so that he is eligible to transfer back on an L-1 (the H-1B lottery hasn't been kind to him).
I know someone in a similar, but slightly different situation. He worked for a European-based SaaS company; an American competitor offered him a job in the Bay. When he didn't win the lottery, they had him working in Dublin for a year, and now he is in SF on a L1.
Right. That's a common route for those who didn't attend a US university and didn't win the lottery.
If you went to a US university, you would have started working on your F1 OPT. You now have 3 years to win the lottery.
If that were to fail (EDIT: you are an essential employee and you happen to work for one of the large tech companies) you'd likely be moved to a foreign office of that company for a year, then transferred back in on a L-1 visa.
Are you suggesting that companies should not be able to hire the most qualified individuals who went through the same system as everybody else?
[EDIT (rephrasing): There is no particular training provided. The international students received the same education as US students at US institutions.]
International students generally have to pay for everything out of pocket (they are not eligible for any public/tax-payer based assistance, not even subsidized loans). This in effect often subsidizes the cost of tuition for the domestic students.
[EDIT: This is the case in the University of California system where the percentage of out of state and international students admissions increases to deal with budget problems.]
The companies in question here expect individuals to have worked on significant projects, demonstrated ambition and passion outside of their regular coursework. Those who can generally have no problem being hired.
Yes, I am in favor of companies that are based in the US and take advantage of US infrastructure and tax-payer funding (indirectly and directly) should be hiring US citizens as workers. Anyway you didn't address the point - it is completely wrong to say that these foreign workers are not competing with US workers for the jobs they take. This is just basic supply and demand. Foreign workers are usually willing to take lower salaries and work longer hours than US citizens, which is why companies love to hire them.
I'm only talking about the subclass of foreign workers who are educated in the US and already in the country.
They surely would not accept longer working hours or less pay.
I didn't say these graduates aren't competing, merely that in the case above nobody is being replaced (in a literal sense) as these were new positions to be filled. Also, they were not filled under the H-1B program, but the F-1 OPT program.
F-1 OPT (post graduation training) hiring is virtually unrestricted (except for its duration).
Of course workers who reside abroad and are brought to the US on H-1B directly are an entirely different class of foreign workers. I cannot speak to this group.
Are you seriously saying that foreign students subsidize the education of US citizens? That is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read on HN. US student's educations are paid for by student loans, they fund their own tuitions I can assure you.
Attending university in the US is a privilege and that does not mean you should be guaranteed a job in the United States upon graduation. You seem to have a real sense of entitlement that because you went to school in the US the US owes you a job. Wow.
This idea that the most talented people can only be found from outside the US needs to just die. If the US were so bereft of talent none of these companies that these H1B visa folks want to work for would exist. Ditto for the US universities they attend.
This idea of relocating people to London for year is just gaming the system.
> Are you seriously saying that foreign students subsidize the education of US citizens?
They absolutely do. Consider that at many schools (particularly UCs) in-state tuition is not enough to cover costs. International students paying high tuition are absolutely helping to subsidize such situations.
Even at top private universities, international students can be a major subsidy. Domestic students typically have their full financial need met, but international students don't. International students thus subsidize the aid for domestic students.
You are just making stuff up! Please show me a citation that supports the claim that US students get their education on the backs of foreigners.
That UC is public university of the state of California, that differential of which you speak is funded by tax payers in California that is why it is cheaper for Californians to attend. Get it right. Here is an abridged history.
It saddens me that instead of trying to understand and debate the truth you instead refuse to accept facts which contradict your worldview.
I never made a political argument. None of my statements were normative. I certainly never said they "get their education on the backs of foreigners."
You can't just deny the objective fact that international students pay more than local students and hence their attendance helps to subsidize local tuition.
Whether this is proper and fair is a completely separate discussion from whether it is true. You can't deny the fact that financial aid for US students is substantially more generous.
As for references, you can find literally hundreds of stories about this very phenomenon:
Article referenced by parent only has data for state funds making up 16 percent of the total budget in 2004/2005.
Using that source no conclusions can be made for the following years. Only percentage of tuition (across all students) as a percentage of total budget is presented.
The phenomenon of out-of-state students significantly supplementing budget deficiencies that ordinarily would result in a necessary increase of tuition for in-state students only began around 2009/2010.
Quoting a newer article (~1 year ago) from the same source [1]:
>Out-of-state students currently pay about $23,000 more in tuition than California residents do, according to Stephen Handel, UC associate vice president of undergraduate admissions. After the UC Board of Regents’ approval of an 8 percent nonresident tuition increase in May, however, that number will jump to about $24,700 for the upcoming academic year.
>Revenue from nonresident students “helps to make up for the cutbacks in state support received over the years,” Handel said.
And another article (from early 2016) with a helpful graphic [2]:
>In the fall, nonresident students made up 15.54 percent of all undergraduates in the university and 24.52 percent of UC Berkeley undergraduates. According to an email from UC spokesperson Claire Doan, the university’s enrollment of non-Californians, who pay higher tuition, helps make up for a lack of state funding.
>“The increase in out-of-state enrollment coincided with budget cuts that related to the Great Recession,” said Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. “Those out-of-state students help to provide funding for in-state students.”
And finally the UC system 2015-2016 budget document. See on page 40 the section for non-resident supplemental tuition:
>All general campuses (except Merced) have sought to increase their numbers of
national and international students without replacing funded California residents. UC’s priority continues to be access for
eligible California residents for whom the State has provided funding. Nevertheless, nonresident students help prepare all
students to effectively live and work in an increasingly global marketplace. Moreover, the total charges they pay significantly
exceed the cost of education, providing extra revenue that improves education for all students and enables campuses to
maintain and increase enrollment for California resident students. Systemwide nonresident undergraduate enrollment
represents a little over 13% of the undergraduate population in 2014-15, whereas more than 30% and 40% of
undergraduates are nonresidents at the University of Virginia and the University of Michigan respectively. For 2015-16, the
University is estimating campuses will enroll an additional 2,000 nonresident students
>Are you seriously saying that foreign students subsidize the education of US citizens? That is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read on HN. US student's educations are paid for by student loans, they fund their own tuitions I can assure you.
The GP is correct, domestic students rarely, if ever, pay the true cost of attendance at colleges and universities (hereafter, called 'schools') [1]. The are taxpayer subsidies such as tax breaks (both the publics and privates benefit) to the schools from local and state governments, as well as annual appropriations for operating costs of public schools. This is especially evident in areas where the cost of attendance is so low to in-state residents, such as the California State school system.
Private schools also subsidise students through merit scholarships, which lower the cost of attendance for foreign and domestic alike, to the tune of anywhere between a few hundred dollars and a free ride.
What tax payer subsidies? Please explain because I am not aware of any.
If you are talking about the 501c3 status that some Universities have that has not reduced tuition costs for anybody in state or otherwise. Additionally the state contributes very little these days to a state university, case in point the UC system.
As far your link that only concerns Pell Grants. Pell Grants are only available to "people of need", most middle class families don't qualify and the average for award if you do is just $3800.
In an article from The Atlantic[1], you can clearly see that total direct federal and state subsidies to higher education in 2014 are about $140 billion with another $20 billion in indirect subsidies. Yes, some of this goes to help offset the cost of attendance through Pell grants and tax credits to the family and shouldn't affect the tuition cost directly.
From the article I linked in the previous message, it does not only address Pell grants:
>>Total federal support to higher education of "nearly $76 billion" with Pell grants being $36 billion and "nearly $25 billion in research funding obligations."
This essentially ignores the condition of the US (and in particular the Bay area) as the tech capital of the world. The US is not bereft of talent, but the US alone does not produce enough tech talent to sustain its position in the world. In some cases, these American companies "that the H1B folks want to work" were founded by non-Americans or even better, were founded out of the US but moved there as a condition in an investment round.
You can be the tech center of the world. You can be an isolationist. You can't be both.
Please show my proof or a citation that the "us does not produce enough tech talent to sustain its position in the world" It seems to me that every year for the last 15 years the US produces new and innovative tech tech companies many very successful. How is this possible then if its not sustainable?
That's a straw man that not buying into the nonsense that without H1B visas the tech economy will grind to a halt means isolationism. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, diversity is not an issue.
<Are you seriously saying that foreign students subsidize the education of US citizens?>
It may be a reference to the fact that many public colleges have tuition breaks for residents.
The other side of that coin is availability. That practice gives those schools a financial incentive to grant full-retail foreign students admission priority over residents. That's certainly the case in California.
The University of California system is exactly what I was referring to.
They increasingly admit more out of state and international students to deal with their increasing budget problems and to counteract otherwise necessary larger tuition increases.
I'm not saying this is good or bad. Just stating that this is happening.
I don't think his statement implies any of the things you are referring to. If you reread the comment again, he is making the argument that the students who went to school in US and are good at what they do should not be discriminated in hiring because they are not US citizens.
> This idea that the most talented people can only be found from outside the US needs to just die. If the US were so bereft of talent none of these companies that these H1B visa folks want to work for would exist. Ditto for the US universities they attend.
There is definitely a dearth in the STEM students who are US citizens and have an under-grad/grad degree from top schools. All the ones who are already places. My company hires from the top 30 schools in US and when my team went for Intern hiring, they couldn't find enough US citizens with masters degree. It's a supply demand problem.
>> Are you seriously saying that foreign students subsidize the education of US citizens? That is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read on HN. US student's educations are paid for by student loans, they fund their own tuitions I can assure you.
Absurd? Perhaps. However, it is reality and happening in the University of California system. [1] The tuition for CA residents (regardless how they choose to finance this -- which is what you are referring to) is currently only maintained by the large number of out of state (and international) admissions.
The problem has gotten so bad that a bill was passed in the state legislature to limit the out of state student enrollment. [2]
>> Attending university in the US is a privilege and that does not mean you should be guaranteed a job in the United States upon graduation.
A privilege that is only accessible to the most privileged foreigners (because they are wealthy in their home countries) or most talented (who receive financial assistance from private organizations, or in some cases their home country).
>> You seem to have a real sense of entitlement that because you went to school in the US the US owes you a job. Wow.
I certainly did not make the case that any graduate of a US university is entitled to any job. I agree with you.
Taking the perspective of a business, how would you incentive your business not to hire the best available candidates who are already in the country (regardless of whether or not they are foreign-born)?
>> This idea that the most talented people can only be found from outside the US needs to just die. If the US were so bereft of talent none of these companies that these H1B visa folks want to work for would exist. Ditto for the US universities they attend.
This is not what I said. I was referring to US-born and foreign-born students attending the same universities for the same duration. I did not advocate for bringing people into the country.
Note that those international students having attended US institutions of higher education can already start working for any employer under the post graduation Optional Practical Training (OPT) for a few years.
>> This idea of relocating people to London for year is just gaming the system.
Agreed. I am not advocating for this. Just describing that this is happening.
There are always people willing to do the job at the right price and work conditions. Companies would rather pay lower salaries with worse working conditions than pay US workers the wages needed to match the demand. It is basic supply and demand - the more supply of something the less demand it has. The country as a whole may benefit from immigration but the US workers who have to compete with foreign workers definitely do not.
The OPT as been extended to 24 months now. But sadly, one can't go from OPT to Greencard. I would have to go through H1B, which is stupid.
Also, the cap is only an issue because the system is getting abused. Even then, it's stupid to give out the visa through lottery once the cap is reached.
29 months actually - from the typical graduation filing date of April 1 to the H1B validity start date of October 1 two years later.
This 17 months extension only applied to STEM majors last time I checked.
It was introduced in the spring of 2009 per DHS executive order (memo).
EDIT: Apparently the duration was changed recently. See comment below.
It used to be 17 months. Now it is 24 months. This is a new rule which started this year in March.
>On March 11, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule allowing certain F-1 students who receive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees, and who meet other specified requirements, to apply for a 24-month extension of their post-completion OPT. The 24-month extension will replace the 17-month STEM OPT extension previously available to STEM students (see 73 FR 18944). Eligible students may now apply for a 24-month STEM OPT extension.
Does that mean the H1B validity now also starts before October 1?
The 17 month extension would have ended October 1 (traditionally the H1B start date). So I am curious what happens if one applies for and is granted the H1B in their third year under OPT.
I don't think so. But one can still use H1B-Gap which basically allows you to stay beyond 24 months if you got an H1B Visa. For example, if the 24 months are over in May, you are allowed to stay until October.
The H1B system favors inexperienced grads straight out of school over truly experienced workers bringing unique skills. Grads get 3 years on OPT while the company can navigate the labyrinth H1B application process. A company looking for a critical senior position for which they cannot have a large class of intakes is at a huge disadvantage. With the level of unemployment of recent grads still high, I think we need to seriously rethink how to structure the H1B program to actually be for uniquely skilled, highly paid workers who would otherwise be "irreplaceable".
So what is actually being paid on these H1B as salary? Using something like h1bdata.info, you can look into any company's filings. For example, the most recent Uber h1b filing[0] has a rate of pay from 110-140k but only a prevailing wage of 68k. Any insight as to what these employees are getting for base salaries?
>"F. Rate of Pay
1. Wage Rate (Required)
From: $ 115,000.00 To: $ 140,000.00"
"Wage rate" is what they are actually being paid. "Prevailing wage" is the legal minimum to be paid for the visa application to be approved for that specific position. Which just goes to show how much of a joke the prevailing wage requirement is, since this person is being paid twice what the supposed prevailing wage for their position is.
As long as the DHS doesn't find a way to shut all these shops and reform the immigration rules, nothing will ever change.Part of the problem exists with the thousands of universities which gives admits to everyone who applies without even a GRE. These universities are pumping the market with resources these H1B shops rely on. The problem with consulting companies which get thousands of visas which actually replaces some American jobs is a whole different story.
All of this takes a comprehensive immigration reforms which encourages merit based visa assignment than a ridiculous lottery, guess this will takes years to happen, sadly.
This will definitely curtail the abuse. Nonetheless this is a double-edged sword. Many so called STEM grads just do it to land a software job. They just invest a couple of years in some anon university and then bring their self entitlement and half-baked semi-polished language skills feeling entitled over guys who invested time and try to find an opportunity to work in the US. These "Grads" are copious in numbers and sickeningly pretentious. Sadly the system runs on money and keep feeding these idiots to attract tuitions into half-arsed universities. Most of them are rich douches with mediocre skills and can't do a lick without begging around for help. part of the rut.
I think all visas (employment or otherwise) should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The "most fair" way to allocate resources is in accordance with how much people are willing to pay.
I don't think the employers in this case deserve prison time. I understand they are being made example of. This law breaking of h1b ranges from subtle to glaringly wrong. Where should we draw the line?. What about all the other consulting companies that do the same thing but have enough influence that they can get out of being caught? Out of all the people abusing this system, how is that the names of the convicted people look foreign?
The employment model of these convicted people benefits from a very bad and outdated h1b law. They find talent every year and get the paperwork done, hope the lottery wins them some visas and then rent out the talent. In good times, the employer saves and in bad times shares the misery with the employees. Some employees might understand this and some don't. They are meeting the demands of market that allowed them to sustain. The employees sign up for this knowing all well what is happening.
The employer should compensate the other employees for their losses and they should be not allowed to hire any other foreign worker. Anything beyond that is excessive.
This is another case of a developer blaming the user.
Now can Disney go to jail for the same in conspiracy with the outsourcing company to replace employed tech workers with cheaper H1Bs when that's not what the visa program is about?
Not Indian, but I have had too many awesome co-workers, while offered full salary and great benefits, not being able to get the H-1B, because scummy shops like these take a huge chunk of them.
I'd rather have a great engineer, employed by a good company, with a good salary, pays taxes, etc... then a desperate not so good engineer, that gets half of the salary, and pays half the taxes, while scummy employer skims off some of his pay.
Here is what happened. H1-Bs must be legally employed all (well most of) the time they are in the USA. To get past that rule, these H1-B shops act as employers and then farm out the employees to other companies. Employers need to pay H1-Bs at least the prevailing wage that is mentioned in their H1-B application. This employer did not. Instead, they reduced wages when the employees were on the bench. That is the violation that they have been convicted for. So this conviction is not that much about H1-B's replacing American workers as much as it is about an unethical employer paying his employees less than the promised wage.
Usually, people who join this kind of shop are people who have not been able to land a direct employer on their own and desperately want to stay in the USA. This judgment will go a long way in correcting the system because now all shops (and there are many!) that run this scam will close down. That, in turn, will decrease the number of people who end up applying for H1-Bs without a real employer. Hopefully, that will improve the perception around genuine H1-B VISA holders.