aspose file tools*
The moose likes Jobs Discussion and the fly likes H1-B activism or hope things get better? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Careers » Jobs Discussion
Bookmark "H1-B activism or hope things get better? " Watch "H1-B activism or hope things get better? " New topic
Author

H1-B activism or hope things get better?

Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
You are mistaken about nurses. The fact is that a few years ago there were a large number of nurses brought in from foreign countries (especially the Phillipines) but that is no longer the case. A nurse can not hide her incompetence. Incompetent nurses kill people. Incompetent programmers write lousy code.
Your comments about teachers shows exactly how uninformed you are. American teachers are among the most educated and skillful in the world. When parents move their kids to other schools, don't those schools use teachers? It is true that inner-city schools have a problem but that problem is not caused by teachers.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Luke Kolin:
Nurses do well not because they're unionised, but because there's a huge shortage of them in the United States. Sort of like how IT workers did so well three years ago.
If this was true then you would not expect any significant difference in salary and benefits between unionized and non-unionized hospitals. But there is a significant difference.
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:
What sort of one-sided picture are we painting? ... This guy is just a shoot-from-the-hip uneducated troll.

Rufus, let's be very clear here. I'm not making any claims about how many IT people the US needs. I honestly don't know if we have too many people in the industry, or too few. I'm not claiming to know one way or another. Please re-read what I've said and you'll discover this.
(But now that you asked, my anecdotal feeling is that we have a glut of <2 years experienced folks, and a continual shortage of mid- and expert-level, but I'm not even going to guess wether H-1B is addressing this.)
What I am suggesting, and it's no more than this, is the following: 1. Eliminating the H-1B program for IT will provide no significant benefits to US IT workers, as employers either move jobs offshore or seek ways around the restriction using the L-1 prorgam, and 2. The loss of US-based jobs will harm the US economy as a whole.
Now, wether we have too many or two few IT workers is really immaterial to that point. I make no claims to have an authoritative or educated opinion on that question, but I don't believe that question is relevant. My main concern is the US economy as a whole, and the economic health of US workers.
Look, I'm a Canadian citizen who hopefully will get a Green Card in a few days/weeks/months. At that point, I'm going to be in the same boat as you. My main goal is my own economic well-being, but I don't believe that it will be served by the elimination or restriction of foreign labour. Having seen the immigration process first-hand, I can speak reasonably well about the different loopholes companies can use, and I can assure you that H-1B elimination won't stop anybody and is just a panacea.
Unionisation won't help anyone. IT grew so much so fast because it *ISN'T* unionised. Unions have a tendency to feed on themselves in that they raise the barriers to entry into an industry. The few young folks that get in are the first out when times turn bad. In the short term, a union can raise benefits, income and working conditions. Over the long run, unions have done nothing for the second or third generations of workers into an industry. The UAW used to be one of the biggest unions. Today, car makers are shutting down union plants in Michigan and Quebec and moving production to right to work states like Alabama and South Carolina.
Rufus, let's stop calling people trolls and start working to find a real solution. I've raised two objections to the H-1B elimination proposal and all that I've received is accusations of trollism
and the IEEE's position on the labour shortage. Let's deal with the issue at hand.
Luke
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You are mistaken about nurses. The fact is that a few years ago there were a large number of nurses brought in from foreign countries (especially the Phillipines) but that is no longer the case. A nurse can not hide her incompetence. Incompetent nurses kill people. Incompetent programmers write lousy code.

For a foreign nurse to receive a Green Card, there's a pair of qualification tests that he or she needs to complete before the process is complete. At that point, they've demonstrated that they're just as competent or incompetent as an American nurse.
Also, it may bear noting that in late 2001 (before the AC21 act was passed) there were rumours abounding that the State Department was about to mark the EB3 category as "oversubscribed" since there were so many Filipino nurses coming in and getting their Green Cards. That was a year ago - and it's hard to gauge now as AC21 for all intents and purposes eliminated per-country limitations on employment-based Green Cards.
American teachers are among the most educated and skillful in the world. When parents move their kids to other schools, don't those schools use teachers?

If that's the case, how come American students' test scores are among the lowest in the western world, despite American public school per student spending being some of the highest in the western world?
Second, if those same union teachers worked for charter and private schools, why would the NEA give a damn about charter schools and vouchers for private and religious schools? If all schools hired union teachers, the union wouldn't case. The pie would be the same, no matter how it's distributed. The reason why they're so viscerally against both concepts is that these schools don't use union teachers with the NEA's abysmal tolerance of poor results.
Call me funny, but I'm a great believer in American ideals, most prominently the freedom to choose. I don't believe that as a parent I should be forced to send my child to a public (union) school if I can do better. If I was an employer, I don't believe I should be forced to hire an inferior or more expensive person just via an accident of birth.
Cheers!
Luke
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:
Matloff addresses this issue. If the jobs are going offshore we don't care. It's not against the law. We don't want 100,000 H1-B over here learning the system.

Let me get this straight, because I'm totally confused here.
If you have an H-1B in the US, he or she makes money which is then spent in other enteprises. A quarter goes back to the US Treasury, and then another 60% gets spent in US establishments. It helps support all kinds of US workers who work for those businesses.
If you then ship the job offshore, you lose the tax revenue, and the additional revenue that is provided to all sorts of citizen-owned, citizen-employing businesses.
And either way, you still haven't hired a single US worker! So which is better??? I'll take Door #1 in heartbeat, Rufus.
Wanting to ship the jobs overseas is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If Indian and Chinese systems are so great why aren't they importing Americans.

The foreigners will learn the system no matter what. Competition, efficiency and productivity aren't rocket scince - it's just that India, China and other countries had protectionist folks who didn't believe in that. They wanted jobs for life and protection from foreign competition.
If, as an American worker, I really wanted to mess up my foreign competition, I'd ship over all the protectionists in America. I'd send over folks to preach the benefits of unionism, seniority-based hiring and pay, and ever-higher protections for workers. I'd give them Ross Perot and Pat Bunchanan as their trade and industry ministers.
But guess what - call Verisign about your domain name and Rajesh in Bangalore will answer the phone. Admittedly, the support stinks, but South India is filled with booming new technology firms that are getting better each year. They're learning fast, and you can't keep them ignorant forever. Sooner or later we'll need to compete.
My father-in-law owned a 1977 Honda Accord. He loved the engine, but the thing (in Canada where we salt the roads) rusted to hell in 3 years. North American automakers laughed at the Japanese, but within 15 years the Big 3 in Canada were GM, Ford, and Toyota. I'd bet if you consider cars and not pickups, 2 of the "Big 3" are now Honda and Toyota. If we're not careful, IT will be the same.
The US (and Canada, too) is dotted with Honda and Toyota (and Mercedes and BMW) plants because we've had the great fortune of competing against Japan and Germany in terms of costs. Trust me, the US is *NOT* going to ever be a lower-cost place to do business than India or China in either of our lifetimes. So let's start competing on the basis of productivity (which involves less regulation, not more).
Let's certainly not turn a blind eye to jobs moving offshore. That's the biggest side effect of eliminating H-1B, and that's the biggest threat to US IT workers if we're not careful. Just as it killed the steel and textile industries.
Some 50 year old COBOL guys did just what their employer asked them to do for the last 25 years. Now they want to chuck them for cheap H1-B's.

One thing I learned coming into the job market at the end of the 1992 recession: your employer is not your friend, or your parent. If you do just what your employer asks you to for the next 20 years, you'll be dumped like an old turd at the end of year 19.
Actually, not even the foreigners are foolish enough to learn COBOL, as they're too busy learning J2EE and other stuff. When the employer decides he no longer needs COBOL programmers and wants J2EE programmers, you'd better make damn sure you've setup a Tomcat box in your spare bedroom and can explain the technology fluently.
You are the only person who can guarantee your own success. Not your employer, and not Congress and the INS keeping out foreign labour. Success is a matter of choice. Choose wisely.
Luke
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Luke Kolin:
For a foreign nurse to receive a Green Card, there's a pair of qualification tests that he or she needs to complete before the process is complete. At that point, they've demonstrated that they're just as competent or incompetent as an American nurse.
Two tests prove that a nurse is competent! You are a troll.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Just a short time ago I was in your camp about them moving jobs offshore. Matloff has shaken my confidence.
A Bogus Threat
Just a hint of what you'll find
This is a bogus threat, demonstrably so: Programmer wages in India are much lower than in the U.S. Given that, why does the industry want to bring Indian programmers to the U.S. as H-1Bs? Why not just employ those programmers in India in the first place? The answer is that it is not feasible to do so.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus Bugleweed ]
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Two tests prove that a nurse is competent! You are a troll.

Please read my post again. I merely said that the tests prove that the foreign nurse is as competent or incompetent as the US nurse. Attention to detail is important, especially for a programmer.
Please stop calling me a troll and answer the questions I've posed: How will elimination of the H-1B program addrress the problem of jobs moving offshore, and what will prevent employers from misusing the L-1 program.
Rufus, to his credit, has posted a link to Matloff's theories. It's not as good as putting them into his own words, but he's raised points that deserve addressing and response. That's what discourse is all about, and that's how you help the US worker.
Luke
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
Aren't you guys tired of discussing this non-sense ??? Get back to work !
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
I can't understand you guys:
1. For people who hate H1B policy: Apparently you are living in a country that congress betrays you, companies lie to you, president doesn't care you, why do you IT people never have a IT union ? I think it is because the white collar IT citizens never have a spirit to unite together. Show me the union. There is a film called "white man can't jump", I say "programmers can't unite". Wait to see. We have seen blue collar people being on strike, professional players on strike, pilots on strike, mailmen on strike, somebody seen programmers on strike ?
2. For people who are H1B: Once you are in a foreigner country, how can you imagine that nobody dislikes the policy that moves you in, or nobody dislikes you ? It is so normal that you shouldn't be surprised. Why do you want to work so hard to convince those people who dislike the policy ? You think they are going to buy your opinion ? When there is sombody thinks he benefits from H1B, there is certainly somebodys think he was taken advantage of by H1B, no need to argue each other.
Can we talents move on to some more meaningful topics ?
Sach Baat
Greenhorn

Joined: Aug 07, 2002
Posts: 21
Originally posted by Luke Kolin:

The foreigners will learn the system no matter what. Competition, efficiency and productivity aren't rocket scince - it's just that India, China and other countries had protectionist folks who didn't believe in that. They wanted jobs for life and protection from foreign competition.
Luke

You are right on the dot with this one. In the 1970s IBM was kicked out of India,partly because the locals were afraid of competition. India was following the Socialist system and the worker was king. It was only in the 1990s that India opened up its markets, a little bit.India is still struggling to dismantle the bloated government run agencies and labour unions.
By the way dont mind the name calling by the other folks.When they run out of arguments, they usually resort to that.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I am starting to wonder if "troll" is a compliment on this board...


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Let's assume that Luke is correct and 3/4ths of the eliminated H1B jobs move offshore. That still means that 25,000 unemployed US programmers will find work. Or does Luke think that every single company using H1Bs will move their jobs offshore? If he thinks that then he is being absurd.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Luke Kolin:

Please read my post again. I merely said that the tests prove that the foreign nurse is as competent or incompetent as the US nurse. Attention to detail is important, especially for a programmer.
Which is an absurd statement. How can two tests possibly determine if a nurse is as competent or incompetent as a US nurse?
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Two tests is better than -
Far from being the top-quality programmers claimed by the industry, many of the H-1Bs do not even have the qualifications claimed for them by their employer sponsors. Computerworld, May 10, 1999, reported:

Officials from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and other agencies last week called for tighter controls over issuing H-1B visas after testifying before a House subcommittee meeting about growing abuses.
William Yates, acting deputy commissioner at the INS, told the subcommittee that 21% of more than 3,200 H-1B visa applications that were filed during the past year through the American consulate in Chennai, India, and audited were found to be fraudulent. The INS began working with the consulate last year to detect H-1B visa fraud. The consulate processed 20,000 H-1B applications last year, mostly for computer programmers.

In addition to the 21% confirmed fraud rate, the INS found that 29% more ``were either probably or possibly fraudulent.''


There's more, my thanks again to Matloff
H1-B Fraud
[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus Bugleweed ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Sach Baat:
You are right on the dot with this one. In the 1970s IBM was kicked out of India,partly because the locals were afraid of competition.

Which is a reason why companies will not export work to foreign countries. No one can be sure of the stability of governments or relations with the US with countries like India or Pakistan. A company that ties up their IT in Pakistan can be very unhappy if Pakistan breaks off diplomatic relations with the US or decides that Americans are infidels and refuses to allow trade with us.
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Let's assume that Luke is correct and 3/4ths of the eliminated H1B jobs move offshore. That still means that 25,000 unemployed US programmers will find work. Or does Luke think that every single company using H1Bs will move their jobs offshore?

Let's take your example and follow it to its logical conclusion, Thomas. We've moved 75,000 jobs offshore, but we've hired 25,000 US programmers. While the effect on US programmers is good in the short term, you're completely missing the effect on the US economy as a whole. My contention has always been that elimination of H-1B will harm the overall US economy. That will, logically, eventually harm IT workers too.
Let's pretend that our mythic 100,000 H-1Bs were each making $50,000 per annum. That's a total of 5 billion dollars that's being paid to workers in the US. The US treasury gets a billion of that, and probably three and a half billion gets spent in gas stations, restaurants, on mortgages and apartment leases. Stuff that supports Americans of all walks of life.
Now, let's say that 75,000 of those jobs get shipped off into India, where the cost is $20,000 per annum. The other 25,000 are filled by US workers who are paid $75,000 per year. How much money is being spent?
Well, US programmers are making $1.875 billion in wages they weren't before. That's pretty good from their standpoint. However, that's how much total money is being pumped into the US consumer sector, down from $5 billion before. So over $3 billion has been taken out of the consumer economy! Where did it all go?
Well, for starters, $1.5 billion went straight to India. Prime Minister Vajpayee says the thank you card is in the mail. The remaining $1.625 billion is going straight to the bottom lines of the companies, which is a good thing, sort of.
Call me a skeptic about capitalism from time time, but I'd rather see that $1.6 billion spent by US-based workers. Instead, some money will be used to give the executives a nice bonus, and the rest will go back to shareholders - not all of whom are in the United States. Keep in mind that the larger shareholders of these companies usually have a higher income and will spend a smaller portion of that money in the economy.
So the short-sighted view is that yes, US programmers are better off. In the short term. In the long term you're pumping at least $1.5 billion, probably $2 billion or so, every year out of the US economy. That's going to cost some jobs. How many? What kind? I don't know - I'm not an economist. However, those job losses need to offset the job gains made by replacing the H-1B workers.
Which gets us right back to the original contention! In my post of 4:43 yesterday, I stated:
2. The loss of US-based jobs will harm the US economy as a whole.

Thanks for reinforcing my point!
Luke
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Which is an absurd statement. How can two tests possibly determine if a nurse is as competent or incompetent as a US nurse?

Well, one of them is the same licensing exam that US nurses go through. (The other is a test of English.) In a system, if you put two different subjects through the same test and compare their results, you can determine each's abilities relative to the other. I recognise you may have a rough time dealing with the notion of a foreigner taking the same tests as an American, but that's the system. It's equally fair or unfair to both.
Now you could argue that one test isn't enough to measure a nurse's competency in general, that's a different argument altogether. But claiming that a foreigner can't demonstrate the same qualifications as an American by passing the same licensure test is just plain discrimination.
Cheers!
Luke
Luke Kolin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 336
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Which is a reason why companies will not export work to foreign countries. No one can be sure of the stability of governments or relations with the US with countries like India or Pakistan.

That's an overly simplistic argument. Every risk has its price, and can be priced out in almost all situations - the question is wether you want to pay for that risk.
Any kind of offshore development has some risk associated with it. Some of it, as you mentioned, is political risk. Another risk is that distance will lead to poor supervision. Another is a communication or language barrier. Each one of these risks has a probability and a cost. When you combine them all together, you get the "discount" that needs to be applied to the price of offshore development. Either way, it can be quantified and put into the contract. Each side knows it.
Apart from the possibility that India and Pakistan will nuke each other into glowing cinders, India is actually a reasonably stable political risk, and the corruption is a good deal lower than Pakistan or Russia. (From the nuclear risk, I'd say there's an equal risk that OBL or Saddam Hussein will nuke a US city in the next two years as there is a risk of nuclear war in South Asia.)
I did a google search on offshore development just now and this was the first link I came up with: http://www.offshoredev.com/jsp/index.jsp. I'd be interested in taking a look at the different companies referenced on the site, and see how many of them sprung up in the last five years. To be fair to you, I'll be interested in seeing how many remain in another five. Probably not a lot, but the sector as a whole will probably employ more folks overseas than it does now.
If you say that companies are not going to export work overseas, you're sadly mistaken. They have done it, they are doing it and they will continue to do it. Yes, there are risks. But corporations have been getting better and better at quantifying and pricing out risk over the past 30 years. You may be risk-averse and want to avoid risks. Large companies didn't get the way they are by doing that - they succeed be seeing risks, evaluating them and taking advantage of them.
Luke
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I personally don't dismiss him as a troll, sjust someone with a difference of opinion, as misguided as I may see it.
The only issue is that the H-1B program is being abused. The H-1B program is not legitimately fulfilling its stated purpose as related to IT. This is undeniable, and truthfully, I have yet to see any pro-H1B individual successfully argue that the intent of the H-1B visa is being properly applied in IT. There is a reason for that, it cannot be argued.
So, as the program is being misapplied, it must end. All the H-1B advocates can do is make exaggerated claims as to the benefits the H-1Bs have brought our economy implying that to remove them from the equation would speel doom and gloom. Of course there is absolutely no evidence that this would be the case.
The H-1B program is to fill a hole in the labor market with temporary non-immigrant labor that cannot be filled domestically due to a general lack of some specialized skill set that can only be imported. That is the programs only purpose. Capitalism (the US, nor anyoe else, does not practice pure capitalism so most arguments in this area are just plain poor), immigration, sending jobs offshore, nor any of the myriad of other excuses H-1B advocates claim changes this basic fact. So because the program as applied to the IT sector is not applied correctly, it must end.
If you want to form a convincing argument, at least argue on a relevant point please. If jobs move offshore, so be it. That has nothing to do with the H-1B program. If there is some other visa employers might try to use to skirt the law, so be it. They won't be using the H-1B visa.
Show me that the H-1Bs are filling positions that cannot be filled with domestic labor. And please also do a little research and use correct numbers if you want to sound convincing. The correct H-1B cap is currently 195,000. While you did admit your 500,000 figure was hypothetical, it was so incredibly off that I believe it was chosen to try to make your point appear to have more merit than it did. Similarly, arguments about how H-1Bs are more economically viable for companies are also irrelevant, since the purpose of the program is not to provide labor that is more economically viable than domestic labor.
Is it possible for you to show how the H-1B program is actually fulfilling its intended purpose? I highly doubt it. And as it is not being used to meet its intended purpose, there is no reason not to end the program as it applies to IT. As I have said before though, if the current visa holders have taken the necessary steps to permanently immigrate to this country, then they should be allowed to stay around until a decision is rendered on this.
Further, the third and fourth countries with the highest numbers of H-1B visa holders are not the issue, particularly since #3 does not need an H-1B visa to work in this country (I haven't seen the numbers, but I'll take your word for it). Numbers 3 and 4 are so far below numbers 1 and 2 that they have having little effect on driving down wages, and in fact I don't think they do. Labor from first-world nations is competitive. The same cannot be said of thrid-world labor.
Sach Baat
Greenhorn

Joined: Aug 07, 2002
Posts: 21
Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:

I'll take this as admission that I cannot get an IT job in Bangalore.
I am on target that Mother India takes better care of her people than Uncle Sam?
We have not run out of auguments or steam for dealing with the likes of trolls or snipers.

Mr. Weed, you might probably sneer at this, but some companies are actually offering internships to American students.Here is a quote from the article
"
Usually, it's the Indian students who are coming to America, but a program offered by fast-growing Indian IT giant Infosys Technologies provides students at MIT, Wharton and other top universities in the U.S. and Europe an opportunity that is hard to match elsewhere.
Infosys' In Step program invites students to work anywhere between one and six months in India on meaningful projects that actually help the firm. Not on dummies created for greenhorns.
For the 2000-2001 school year, 800 students from top American and European colleges applied for just 24 vacancies, most of them in Bangalore. Recruiting for the next year has started, and according to Infosys the number of applications will increase substantially."
Read the article here http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,47435,00.html
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
The L-1 visa in most cases will not be seen as a viable alternative by most companies. They are quite a bit more restrictive than H-1s and will require the companies to jump through many more hoops. The L-1 is also not quite as good a deal for the employee as the H-1 is.
I would have little doubt that some companies might use the L-1, but as long as it was done legally, I have no problem with it.
The main requirements for L-1s are as follows....
  • The employee must have worked abroad in either (a) a managerial or executive position, or (b) in a position performing services entailing "specialized knowledge"; and must be coming to work in the U.S. in one of these capacities.
  • The company for which the employee worked abroad must be either the same company for which the employee will be working for in the U.S., or a branch, subsidiary, or affiliate of that company.
  • The employee must have worked abroad for that particular company for one continuous year within the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition for the L-1 visa.
  • The employee must be qualified, in terms of education and experience, for the position.

  • The employee must intend to leave the U.S. at the end of the authorized period of stay.
  • The company in the U.S. and the related company abroad must continue doing business in the U.S. and in one foreign country during the entire period of the transfer.


  • As you can see, this is quite a bit more restrictive than the H-1.
    If, as another poster may have suggested, you frequent another forum that deals largely with immigration issues, it does make your purposes here a little bit suspect. Maybe this is where the troll label came from?
    Regardless, for myself, despite your characterization of the anti-H1s, I at least am not some bitter unemployed IT worker. I am employed in the industry, and in fact I would probably go as far to say that my job will not be moved offshore and I will not be replaced with cheap imported foreign temporary labor. I am just a concerned citizen angered by an industry that is allowed to blatantly exploit a program to their benefit and to the detriment of the US citizen. I belive that more people need to be aware of this program and how it is being used agaist the American worker. So hopefully, you can see that not only people who are affected directly by H1 abuse are the ones who are against this abuse.
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by Luke Kolin:
    Let's take your example and follow it to its logical conclusion, Thomas. We've moved 75,000 jobs offshore, but we've hired 25,000 US programmers. While the effect on US programmers is good in the short term, you're completely missing the effect on the US economy as a whole. My contention has always been that elimination of H-1B will harm the overall US economy. That will, logically, eventually harm IT workers too.

    Again, I'm afraid your numbers are so incredibly exageratted that this line of argument doesn't really serve your intended goals. Further, the argument is irrelevant because this still has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the H-1B program.
    I believe that by abandoning any attempt to argue that the H-1B visa is being correctly applied that you are making my point. And therefore, any other line of argument is irrelevant, since you too must believe that the H-1B visa program is being misapplied.
    Rufus BugleWeed
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 22, 2002
    Posts: 1551
    You are correct Mr. Truth, I'm going to sneer at it. Hiring only new college graduates is thinly veiled age discrimination.
    Rufus BugleWeed
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 22, 2002
    Posts: 1551
    Oh Mr. Kolin, I'll take a swipe at your augument too.
    You say something like bringing H1-B's here saves jobs in North America ( NA ) and thereby benefits the NA ecomony as a whole. There may be some truth to this. How much of the benefit is the ecomony willing to shovel to displaced IT workers?
    None you say, tough titty!
    Now if the jobs go to India, this hits a much greater segment of the economy. Grocers, cable tv providers, gas stations, doctors, dentist and realtors all have to take a cut. This lowers prices in America and dislocates workers in other industries. I'm better able to compete in the open market with these other dislocated workers. I'm better able to pay lowered prices.
    To crudely para-phrase JFK, a falling tide lowers all boats evenly. The H1-B system saves the big boys yachts and torpedoes the boats of the people who made the sacrifice to bring an IT skill to the market.
    Why do you think just screwing people in the scientific and technical community, is a superior course?
    [ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus Bugleweed ]
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by Luke Kolin:
    If that's the case, how come American students' test scores are among the lowest in the western world, despite American public school per student spending being some of the highest in the western world?

    There are a couple of reasons. For one thing, if a child scores low on standardized tests, the brunt of the fault lies with the child and his parents. A teacher can do everything possible to try to help a child to learn, but if the child and the parents do not value education or refuse to make the necessary commitment to education, the learning process will be hindred. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
    This problem is manifest in the prevalent liberal attitude, which you have displayed by this comment, that "nothing is my fault". If my child scores low on a test, it can't be because of something he or I have or have not done, it must be the schools fault. Education is supposed to be a partnership between the school and the home. If the necessary steps aren't being taken in the home, education will suffer.
    Additionaly, it seems our society does not value teachers. This is evident in the general lack of respect they receive as well as the low pay. If we paid teachers what they were really worth to our society, they would attract people of the highest caliber; people who are not now willing to work for less than $30k / year.
    Teachers are also no longer able to maintain discipline in their class rooms (no I don't mean corporal punishment) because of precious liberal sensitivites gone awry. "How dare you single my child out for poor behavior." "How dare you remove my child from the classroom because you claim he was disrupting others." These liberal sensitivies are also evident by new teaching methodologies being forced on teachers by liberal groups whic eliminate concepts such as failure and academic competition.
    So if see some problem with the education system, before pointing the finger at the teachers, you might want to look in the mirror.
    If I was an employer, I don't believe I should be forced to hire an inferior or more expensive person just via an accident of birth.

    And this is where you are way off base. Like not even out in left field but in another ballpark. American companies are corporate citizens of the US. This is a fact. These aren't Canadian companies, Indian companies, Khazakstani companies, or anything else we are talking about. The success of these American companies is due in very large part because of the American system in which they have had the priveledge to operate in. As these corporate citizens owe their prosperity to this country, and its people, they have the responsibility to give back to the very system by which they have profited and prospered. And the way to do this is not by skirting labor law, sabotaging the US labor market, and destroying the American worker.
    To throw your comment back at you, I see no reason why a company should be allowed to prosper through accident of "birth". Had the founders of the company been born outside of this country, then in all likelihood the company would have never been founded or would have never reached the current level of profitiability.
    Further, you are not hiring an "inferior" person when you hire a US worker. As politically incorrect as this may be to state, in fact all evidence is that the US worker on average is superior to any other in the world. Our industrial and economical dominance over time is sufficient to bear this out. I am not knocking any other country or its workers, however your presumtption that by hiring the citizen or legal resident (who may have been born in this country or not) that you are hiring an "inferior" worker is ridiculously absurd.
    By the way, how are you judging the superiority of the foreign worker, since particularly in the case of the third-world employees you can't verify their credentials to any reasonable degree of certainty. Well, simply put, your error distribution is going to be much greater in judging the merit and skill level of the foreign worker than it would be for a domestic worker. I will add the caveat that I think system is in place to adequately check out the credentials of potential employees from developed nations.
    As for hiring a more "expensive" worker. Yes, absolutely. That is the price of doing business in this country. I'm sorry if we cannot compete with a third world labor force who is willing and able to work for mere pennies on the dollar compared to the first-world laborer. By your faulty logic, we can replace every single first laborer in every single profession with the hordes of cheaper and more readily available hordes of third-world labor. That makes a lot of sense for the well-being of a developed nation. :roll:
    [ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
    sim sim
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 05, 2002
    Posts: 55
    If you DO NOT understand, I can explain things to you
    But if you DO NOT WANT to understand, I cannot help it.
    Hey, do I sound pro H-1 or anti H-1, u guys decide.
    BTW, it is a shame on your part Thomas, being a sheriff, you are using such a low level language like troll. Pl be choosy at words as that shows your mentality and personality.
    Abraham Reed
    Greenhorn

    Joined: Sep 09, 2002
    Posts: 3
    Rich,
    You got laid off because your company was not doing well. You can't find a job because you are not qualified enough. Just admit it.
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    By Luke's argument if every American was laid off and replaced by an H1B that would be a good thing and would help the US economy!!! Luke is missing the point that Americans are out of work and are unemployed so that foreigners like him can have jobs here. That is wrong no matter how much it helps pay the $8 million per year retirement benefits of Jack Welch.
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by A R:
    Rich,
    You got laid off because your company was not doing well. You can't find a job because you are not qualified enough. Just admit it.

    What a fine contribution. A personal attack on another poster. I for one look forward to more scintillating insights from you in the future.
    Pradip Bhat
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 04, 2002
    Posts: 149
    Originally posted by Sach Baat:

    You are right on the dot with this one. In the 1970s IBM was kicked out of India,partly because the locals were afraid of competition. India was following the Socialist system and the worker was king.
    By the way dont mind the name calling by the other folks.When they run out of arguments, they usually resort to that.

    No,closing the IBM/Coke was a political.Socialist leaders wanted big pie of IBM/Coke for their funding in 1977 general election.Most possibly IBM/Coke gave money to the then Prime minister Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party.Socialist came to power after the election and took the revenge against IBM/Coke by closing them in the name of Foreign companies.At that time ,in 1978 IBM had 600 major installations.People in IBM India formed new company CMC(http://www.cmcltd.com/).Companies came in 1992 again after globalisation started in 1991.


    Yeshwantpur
    Luke Kolin
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 04, 2002
    Posts: 336
    Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:
    Now if the jobs go to India, this hits a much greater segment of the economy. Grocers, cable tv providers, gas stations, doctors, dentist and realtors all have to take a cut. This lowers prices in America and dislocates workers in other industries. I'm better able to compete in the open market with these other dislocated workers. I'm better able to pay lowered prices.

    Let me understand this properly. You don't like H-1B because you feel it hurts your industry by shipping in foreign workers who work for less.
    You'd actually prefer if the jobs left the US for good, because then everyone would suffer. So for you, it's not a matter of your own economic problems, you're just upset that your economic problems are not shared by the US as a whole. If you're going to suffer, everyone should suffer. Wow.
    Luke
    To argue that you'll be able to better compete in the open market against those other workers seems unreasonable. Unless you intend on working as unskilled labour or have some other skill, while rates may be lower, the number of people you'll be competing against will be higher.
    Luke Kolin
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 04, 2002
    Posts: 336
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    By Luke's argument if every American was laid off and replaced by an H1B that would be a good thing and would help the US economy!!!

    Thomas, such an uncalled-for statement is deliberately false and overly hysterical. I've never claimed such a thing. You and everyone else have my words here in the thread and you can judge for yourself. I've been consistent, while you appear to be getting more and more hysterical on the subject.
    Let's do remedial reading again:
    My contention is, and has been, that the US benefits more by having an H-1B in the country, than having the job shipped overseas. If we eliminate the H-1B program, many of the jobs that were being done in the United States by H-1B holders may be done in the future by foreign workers in foreign countries.
    How difficult is this to grasp?
    Luke is missing the point that Americans are out of work and are unemployed so that foreigners like him can have jobs here.

    Absolutely. I don't disagree with that. But unless Americans deal with the root cause of this unemployment, it's only going to get work. American IT workers have been misled for far too long by folks like yourself who make misleading statements about the H-1B program.
    I'm going say something surprising: I actually agree with Jason Menard. I'm sure this will get quoted out of context, but let me say it anyways because Jason is right: H-1B workers increase the supply of labour within the United States, and therefore decrease the price. And yes, there is some abuse of the program and fraud. How much, we don't know - it's probably statistically significant, but not much more. However, fraud and depressed US wages are merely symptoms of a greater issue.
    However, that doesn't matter. The part that H-1B critics seem to consistently miss is the 90% of the foreign labour iceberg that they don't see: the dozen foreign workers outside the US that never come here on H-1B. There is an assumption that the US labour market is a closed system; if we decrease the supply of workers in the United States, we increase the price. Unfortunately, every day it becomes more and more of a global labour market. We don't have programmers in New York or California claiming that people in Texas are unfairly taking advantage of lower tax rates and cost of living, because the US is pretty much a single labour pool. With software, the same thing is true world wide.
    With any product, you need to locate your factory near to your raw materials, and close to your consumers so your transport costs aren't too high. With software, there are no transport costs so you don't need to worry where you're located - you can go where you have the cheapest cost of operation. And every year, that is less and less likely to be in the United States.
    Matloff makes an argument that very little offshore development is taking place. The issue I have with him is that since the original document was made in 1997-98, I don't know how old his citation is. I think it's more than he claims. The other main argument against offshore development is that it requires additional hand-holding and cannot be used for specialised taks. That is correct, today. However - every year these offshore firms develop experience and increase their delivery potential. Our view of them is static; yet they are most assuredly not standing still.
    That is the real threat: the labour pool is becoming global, and American workers are not just competing with H-1Bs, but also with thousands of IT workers across the world. By getting rid of H-1B, you are merely treating a symptom without addressing the underlyng disease. If you're running a fever because of a bacterial infection, you don't take an aspirin for the fever and leave the infection untouched; that's suicidal. For America to deal with the H-1B symptom without addressing the root cause of IT labour globalisation is equally suicidal.
    Can we all stop the hysterics and see the real issue here, or is it too easy to bash the H-1B program and live in the fantasy that things will get better?
    That is wrong no matter how much it helps pay the $8 million per year retirement benefits of Jack Welch.

    Wether it's right or wrong is somewhat beside the point. The issue is it's happenning, and will only accelerate with the elimination of the H-1B program. What are you going to do about it?
    Cheers!
    Luke
    Paavam Payyan
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 25, 2002
    Posts: 86
    Apologies for posting slightly off-topic here.
    India has come a long way forward from where we were in 1960s or early 70s. Until early 80s Indian administration was busy rebuilding our agriculture base, and we had to stay pretty close because we didn?t had the potential to either compete or to make use of international market. Things have changed since 80s and Indian economy is as vibrant as that of any other first world market at the moment, and the present political stability is really helping things.
    On a side note, please do not refer India and Pakistan in a same statement, which gives a wrong impression that these two are almost similar. Its wrong, and I am proud that ours is a politically stable, secular democracy with more than 1.2 billion people living harmoniously. I am sorry for my neighbours, but for now they are on their own.
    Okay, Now let the H1B discussion continue..


    <i>All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost - <b>Gandalf</b></i>
    Abadula Joshi
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 01, 2002
    Posts: 126
    Originally posted by Sim--
    BTW, it is a shame on your part Thomas, being a sheriff, you are using such a low level language like troll. Pl be choosy at words as that shows your mentality and personality.

    Let me ask you Sim, what do you expect Thomas's level to be ? If you expect too much, it is your own problem...
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by sim sim:
    you are using such a low level language like troll. Pl be choosy at words as that shows your mentality and personality.

    That was the correct word, and the misunderstanding is all yours I'm afraid. A troll is a common term, which originated in the usenet newsgroups and has widespread use in web forums as well, which is to indicate an individual who posts inflamatory comments merely to get a rise out of people, with no intentions of carrying on a serious discussion. It's not "low-level language", it's common parlance. If you don't recognize it as such, that is not his problem, it's yours.
    Abadula Joshi
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 01, 2002
    Posts: 126
    FYI --- In English, a "troll" means A supernatural being, often represented as of diminutive size.
    In slang, A "troll" means a stupid person.
    Ravi Veera
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2001
    Posts: 127
    FYI From here
    troll1 Pronunciation Key (trl)
    v. trolled, troll�ing, trolls
    v. tr.
    1.
    1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
    2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
    3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
    2. Slang. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: “ [Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways” (Pete Axthelm).
    3. Music.
    1. To sing in succession the parts of (a round, for example).
    2. To sing heartily: troll a carol.
    4. To roll or revolve.

    v. intr.
    1. To fish by trailing a line, as from a moving boat.
    2.
    1. To wander about; ramble.
    2. Slang. To patrol an area in search for someone or something.
    3. Music. To sing heartily or gaily.
    4. To roll or spin around.

    n.
    1.
    1. The act of trolling for fish.
    2. A lure, such as a spoon or spinner, that is used for trolling.
    2. Music. A vocal composition in successive parts; a round.

    [Middle English trollen, to wander about, from Old French troller, of Germanic origin.]troller n.
    Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    troll2 Pronunciation Key (trl)
    n.
    A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.
    [Old Norse.]
    Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    troll
    \Troll\, n. [Icel. troll. Cf. Droll, Trull.] (Scand. Myth.) A supernatural being, often represented as of diminutive size, but sometimes as a giant, and fabled to inhabit caves, hills, and like places; a witch.
    Troll flower. (Bot.) Same as Globeflower (a) .
    Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

    troll
    \Troll\, v. i. 1. To roll; to run about; to move around; as, to troll in a coach and six.
    2. To move rapidly; to wag. --F. Beaumont.
    3. To take part in trolling a song.
    4. To fish with a rod whose line runs on a reel; also, to fish by drawing the hook through the water.
    Their young men . . . trolled along the brooks that abounded in fish. --Bancroft.
    Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

    troll
    \Troll\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Trolled; p. pr. & vb. n. Trolling.] [OE. trollen to roll, F. tr[^o]ler, Of. troller to drag about, to ramble; probably of Teutonic origin; cf. G. trollen to roll, ramble, sich trollen to be gone; or perhaps for trotler, fr. F. trotter to trot (cf. Trot.). Cf. Trawl.] 1. To move circularly or volubly; to roll; to turn.
    To dress and troll the tongue, and roll the eye. --Milton.
    2. To send about; to circulate, as a vessel in drinking.
    Then doth she troll to the bowl. --Gammer Gurton's Needle.
    Troll the brown bowl. --Sir W. Scott.
    3. To sing the parts of in succession, as of a round, a catch, and the like; also, to sing loudly or freely.
    Will you troll the catch ? --Shak.
    His sonnets charmed the attentive crowd, By wide-mouthed mortaltrolled aloud. --Hudibras.
    4. To angle for with a trolling line, or with a book drawn along the surface of the water; hence, to allure.
    5. To fish in; to seek to catch fish from.
    With patient angle trolls the finny deep. --Goldsmith.
    Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

    troll
    \Troll\, n. 1. The act of moving round; routine; repetition. --Burke.
    2. A song the parts of which are sung in succession; a catch; a round.
    Thence the catch and troll, while ``Laughter, holding both his sides,'' sheds tears to song and ballad pathetic on the woes of married life. --Prof. Wilson.
    3. A trolley.
    Troll plate (Mach.), a rotative disk with spiral ribs or grooves, by which several pieces, as the jaws of a chuck, can be brought together or spread radially.
    Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

    troll
    n : (Scandinavian folklore) a supernatural creature (either a dwarf or a giant) that is supposed to live in caves or in the mountains v 1: circulate, move around 2: cause to move round and round; "The child trolled her hoop" 3: sing the parts of (a round) in succession 4: angle with a hook and line drawn through the water 5: sing loudly and without inhibition 6: praise or celebrate in song; "All tongues shall troll you" 7: speak or recite rapidly or in a rolling voice
    Source: WordNet � 1.6, � 1997 Princeton University

    troll
    An array language for continuous simulation, econometric modelling or statistical analysis.
    ["TROLL Reference Manual", D0062, Info Proc Services, MIT (1973-76)].

    Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, � 1993-2001 Denis Howe

    troll
    An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
    (1994-10-17)

    Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, � 1993-2001 Denis Howe

    troll
    v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
    Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
    Vladan Radovanovic
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Mar 20, 2000
    Posts: 216
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:

    That was the correct word, and the misunderstanding is all yours I'm afraid. A troll is a common term, which originated in the usenet newsgroups and has widespread use in web forums as well, which is to indicate an individual who posts inflamatory comments merely to get a rise out of people, with no intentions of carrying on a serious discussion. It's not "low-level language", it's common parlance. If you don't recognize it as such, that is not his problem, it's yours.

    So are you saying that Luke posted some inflamatory comments and never continued discussion? What post exactly are you reading
    Anthony Villanueva
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Mar 22, 2002
    Posts: 1055
    Just to add: a troll is a 6+6 Hit Die monster with three attacks, AC 4, THAC0 13, and regenerates at 3hp/sec. The only way to totally kill it is to use fire or acid. It prefers to walk around swamps without its pants on.
     
    I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
     
    subject: H1-B activism or hope things get better?