As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
The [I-Squared Act], Or How Silicon Valley Is Looking To Screw Tech Workers Again
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, once again, there's a push to vastly expand the number of H-1B visas issued, potentially up to 300,000 a year. The sponsors are calling this the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013, or the I-Squared Act for short. While it's being framed as a needed measure in order to keep American tech firms competitive, what it really does is undermine workers in the tech industry in the US, as well as many other industries. Furthermore, this is very dangerous to the US in the long run, as it continues to encourage the dynamic that is actually threatening the US's position in STEM fields.
How does it undermine workers in the US?
While this is being pushed in the context of immigration, the reality is that the majority of H-1B visas are given to outsourcing firms who use the visas for temporary guest workers, many times so that the guest worker can learn the role of an American worker and then take the work back overseas, like what happened with Pfizer. Even if the worker is intended to work in the US, not overseas, H-1B workers are considered more attractive due to the fact that the employer has greater control over them, allowing for abuse.
But the tech industry says that it needs to bring people in because Americans don't have the skills needed! Haven't you been reading up about the problems with our schools and STEM education?
Yes, I have been reading up on said "problem", and as I've posted about in several threads on education, we're being sold a bill of goods. The vast majority of the issues with American primary and secondary education ultimately devolve to issues with poverty and the fact that it's very hard to teach a child whose biggest worry is whether or not there will be dinner and someplace to sleep safely that night. Among students that are not below the poverty line, we perform at the top levels, and overall, American schools have shown continuing improvement year after year. In regards to post-secondary education, a 2007 study by the Urban Institute points out that contrary to popular belief, American colleges are producing more STEM graduates than ever, far in excess of demand. It should be no surprise that the tech industry has shown support for the "education reform" movement.
As for skills, a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute debunks the argument that the H-1B visa is being used to bring in the "best and brightest". There's also the fact that in real terms, salaries in tech fields have been going down since 2008, which is a sign of a glut in labor supply, not a shortage. Part of the issue is that firms of all stripes no longer value training new workers, instead expecting that workers come pretrained. Another part is that many times, the cry of "we can't find qualified people" has the unstated coda "at the price we want to pay". Peter Cappelli, a Wharton School professor and skeptic of the "skills gap", addresses both points in a roundtable op-ed in the New York Times:
Point 2 is of special note, as it's been shown that firms craft hiring requirements in such a way to disqualify American workers, as seen in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
Okay, but this is all relatively short term in scope. You said that there was a long term problem.
Yes, there is. One of the big reasons that there seems to be a problem in STEM education is that many of our top students are eschewing STEM fields. The thing is, a lot of why that is happening is because they no longer see employment in STEM fields as attractive, in large part due to the devaluation of STEM labor. For example, why become a programmer when you can instead become a financial quant and make much more money? As the EPI study points out, the result of this has been an internal brain drain in the US, as STEM loses top minds to finance, law, and other fields. If this is left unchecked, then STEM worker supply in the US will collapse - but it will collapse from short-sightedness and greed, not from supposed deficiencies in education. This is the actual long term threat to STEM in the US.
Okay, but what about solutions?
A lot of the problem stems from the fact that the H-1B visa is considered a dual intent visa. Normally, visas in the US are divided into one of two types of intent - temporary visas for specific, defined periods; and visas for people seeking to become permanent residents or US citizens. Typically, the two intents are kept separate - part of getting a temporary visa is acknowledging that you do not seek permanent residence in the US. Originally, the H-1B was a temporary guest worker visa with single intent, but after lobbying, Congress removed the restriction on seeking permanent US residence during the term of the visa. The problem there is that while it now was considered a path to residency now, it was still structured as a guest worker visa, which is what causes all the problems.
So, I propose the following:
* Revert H-1B back to a single intent temporary guest worker visa. Furthermore, tighten up the loopholes regarding wages and employment, to reduce the ability to abuse the visa.
* Alongside that, create a permanent immigration visa targeted at skilled workers in fields with a demonstrated need in the US. Link the determination of need to indicators such as wages in the fields requesting immigration, so that clear need is what is being filled.
Reverting H-1B back to a single intent visa will pull political will from expansion, as a lot of the rhetoric used to pushed for expansion revolves around immigration. Creating a targeted skilled worker permanent visa will address the issue of attracting top talent from abroad while not undercutting workers in the US.
How does it undermine workers in the US?
While this is being pushed in the context of immigration, the reality is that the majority of H-1B visas are given to outsourcing firms who use the visas for temporary guest workers, many times so that the guest worker can learn the role of an American worker and then take the work back overseas, like what happened with Pfizer. Even if the worker is intended to work in the US, not overseas, H-1B workers are considered more attractive due to the fact that the employer has greater control over them, allowing for abuse.
But the tech industry says that it needs to bring people in because Americans don't have the skills needed! Haven't you been reading up about the problems with our schools and STEM education?
Yes, I have been reading up on said "problem", and as I've posted about in several threads on education, we're being sold a bill of goods. The vast majority of the issues with American primary and secondary education ultimately devolve to issues with poverty and the fact that it's very hard to teach a child whose biggest worry is whether or not there will be dinner and someplace to sleep safely that night. Among students that are not below the poverty line, we perform at the top levels, and overall, American schools have shown continuing improvement year after year. In regards to post-secondary education, a 2007 study by the Urban Institute points out that contrary to popular belief, American colleges are producing more STEM graduates than ever, far in excess of demand. It should be no surprise that the tech industry has shown support for the "education reform" movement.
As for skills, a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute debunks the argument that the H-1B visa is being used to bring in the "best and brightest". There's also the fact that in real terms, salaries in tech fields have been going down since 2008, which is a sign of a glut in labor supply, not a shortage. Part of the issue is that firms of all stripes no longer value training new workers, instead expecting that workers come pretrained. Another part is that many times, the cry of "we can't find qualified people" has the unstated coda "at the price we want to pay". Peter Cappelli, a Wharton School professor and skeptic of the "skills gap", addresses both points in a roundtable op-ed in the New York Times:
Before any employer jumps to the conclusion that hiring problems are caused by the labor market, take the following test:
1. Have you tried raising wages? If you could get what you want by paying more, the problem is just that you are cheap. The fact that I cannot find the car I want at the price I want to pay does not constitute a car shortage, yet a large number of employers claiming they face a skills shortage admit that the problem is getting candidates to accept their wage rates.
2. Are your hiring requirements unreasonable? See how many of your current employees could get hired using the standards you have set.
3. Are you sure you cannot train anyone? Compare how much it costs to keep a vacancy unfilled to what it would cost to get an otherwise good candidate up to speed. If you have no idea what each of those options costs, you are probably paying more attention to purchasing office supplies than to your work force.
4. If you expect schools to produce different candidates, have you told them that and tried to help them change? Simply expecting an important supplier to meet your needs without working with them is a basic supply chain failure.
Point 2 is of special note, as it's been shown that firms craft hiring requirements in such a way to disqualify American workers, as seen in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGUOkay, but this is all relatively short term in scope. You said that there was a long term problem.
Yes, there is. One of the big reasons that there seems to be a problem in STEM education is that many of our top students are eschewing STEM fields. The thing is, a lot of why that is happening is because they no longer see employment in STEM fields as attractive, in large part due to the devaluation of STEM labor. For example, why become a programmer when you can instead become a financial quant and make much more money? As the EPI study points out, the result of this has been an internal brain drain in the US, as STEM loses top minds to finance, law, and other fields. If this is left unchecked, then STEM worker supply in the US will collapse - but it will collapse from short-sightedness and greed, not from supposed deficiencies in education. This is the actual long term threat to STEM in the US.
Okay, but what about solutions?
A lot of the problem stems from the fact that the H-1B visa is considered a dual intent visa. Normally, visas in the US are divided into one of two types of intent - temporary visas for specific, defined periods; and visas for people seeking to become permanent residents or US citizens. Typically, the two intents are kept separate - part of getting a temporary visa is acknowledging that you do not seek permanent residence in the US. Originally, the H-1B was a temporary guest worker visa with single intent, but after lobbying, Congress removed the restriction on seeking permanent US residence during the term of the visa. The problem there is that while it now was considered a path to residency now, it was still structured as a guest worker visa, which is what causes all the problems.
So, I propose the following:
* Revert H-1B back to a single intent temporary guest worker visa. Furthermore, tighten up the loopholes regarding wages and employment, to reduce the ability to abuse the visa.
* Alongside that, create a permanent immigration visa targeted at skilled workers in fields with a demonstrated need in the US. Link the determination of need to indicators such as wages in the fields requesting immigration, so that clear need is what is being filled.
Reverting H-1B back to a single intent visa will pull political will from expansion, as a lot of the rhetoric used to pushed for expansion revolves around immigration. Creating a targeted skilled worker permanent visa will address the issue of attracting top talent from abroad while not undercutting workers in the US.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
+17
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Which is why the proponents of the act are spinning it along immigration lines - they're pushing it as "we need to increase immigration of skilled workers (because everyone knows that American schools and students are failing)", even though H-1B is used primarily for temporary workers.
why does that matter?
while the point is well taken that potential workers can be trained more on site, that doesn't mean all graduates are attractive candidates for that training- or to eventually become able employees
Because you're then arguing that our colleges are failing. Which, while an argument that you can make, is going to be one that is very hard to defend. In short, if you want to make the argument that the the labor market isn't supplying you with the people that you need, you deserve to have a very high burden of proof put on you.
Or to put it simply, while not every graduate will be sutible, some will be.
i don't think the argument is that no graduates are suitable. obviously a great many american engineers are hired every year by the software and hardware industries. the question isn't binary. certainly some able engineers come out of american universities (or out of american self-instruction). the question is whether good, able applicants with potential come out of the american system in enough numbers to satisfy the labor demand.
which is, i mean, whatever- you can argue that the answer is yes. but 'we have a lot of americans who go to school and want those jobs!!!" isn't a meaningful vector of attack.
No, but "our colleges are some of the best in the world, and the people you're asking to bring in aren't really all that different from the graduates that we are producing abilitywise" is. Again, too many times, "we can't get the people we need" comes with the unspoken "at the price we want to pay". Cappelli put it well - if I can't find a car I want as a price I want, that does not mean that there is a car shortage. It means I need to rethink what I want in a car.
The other reason to make the argument is that the tech industry has been making the unqualified "we're not producing enough STEM graduates" argument. Which is in turn built on the "our education systems are failing" bullshit we keep hearing from the "education reform" movement. Again, it shouldn't be any surprise that the tech industry supports them.
Right, but in that case the company should sponsor immigration of qualified labor if they really can not find it. H1-B is only temporary workers, brought in so that they can be paid low wages and treated like shit because their employer is the only thing keeping them in the country.
Temporary guest worker programs have always encouraged abuse of the workers whenever implemented.
The other point is that a lot of the requirements that are placed on new workers are either overtly specific (like knowing these 6 programming languages 4 of which you will probably never use on the job in an entry level position), requires a lot of experience in the field far beyond the position should require (entry level lab tech? do you have 3 years clinical research?) or use BULLSHIT "personality tests" that are based more on astrology then any science.
You create a bunch of hoops that are meaningless to the job so that everyone is rejected and you can piss and moan that you need guest workers (who also happen to work for less wages and are "easier" to manage, wow how serendipitous!).
I'll tell you this much: I don't drive a semi because I lacked the education for other work. When I finished my degree, I spent a year looking for a programming or IT job. Even with the university's help, I had very few interviews. There were too many people with experience for too few jobs; why bother training when industry veterans are desperate enough to take entry-level pay?
So I got my CDL and started studying for my CompTIA certifications over the road. Of course, after I got my Security+, I ran the numbers and realized I was making way more money as a trucker driving state-to-state than I would as a code monkey locked in a cubicle. That pretty much ended my desire to get a tech job.
- John Stuart Mill
Obviously H-1Bs are better for companies, because it gives them a lot more power over their workers. If you employ someone with an H-1B it's a lot easier to get 22-hour days out of them because they literally have no other options. If they lose their employment they lose their visa. American workers can't do much to bargain for their rights (they're just lucky to have jobs at all), but at least they have the option of leaving if conditions get too bad. I am very skeptical of the idea that it is something we need in order to stay competitive.
It often seems like it's almost a seperate category from the rest of STEM these ways because there's just so damn many of them.
i'm not at all disagreeing with that- i'm not speaking as the stalwart patron of corporate tech firms in america. i'm sure there are scummy practices.
i'm just saying that "a lot of americans try to be programmers and go to school for it, so it's bullshit that our educational system isn't producing enough qualified candidates" is a superficial response. the rest of the post made sense to me.
It's a bitch.
I would argue that it's a superficial response to a superficial complaint. The education system is being attacked because it is pretty much the last argument they can make.
Globalization's a hell of a drug. Ain't no way to turn the clock back on that bad boy.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Basically the message to Americans who want a job is: DESPAAAAAAAIR
This shit be scary when I'm trying to decide what to steer our daughter towards for education. She's got some time - like 20 years - but things are looking worse all the time. Are things that much worse, or am I just paying attention to it now?
Ultimately, the issue is the same one we keep dealing with, over and over - corporations putting short term profit over long term viability. And then the government goes along unquestioningly. We really need to put the issue of "education reform" to rest, because it's what is enabling a lot of the issues.
The flipside is that the issue could be that we just don't need as many people working in America as we once did, and so we need to prepare for a world in which there will never be enough jobs. . .
Of all people, you especially do not want that happening.
?
Well the thing is, he's not wrong. We are creating a world of efficiency savings and automation. There will not be a need for workers on a pure dollars and cents level of management. Innovation and technology will create new jobs, but we simply have too many people who need a good job.
We will need to find something to do with these thousands of people who will no longer be able to get a job. My hope would be for an increased federal minimum wage, stronger safety net, and perhaps some kind of WPA-ish agency.
But unless we start taking elections away from baby boomers soon I think instead we'll be opening up Soylent Green factories any day now.
Like I've said in many other threads, I think that we are at a point where we need to decide whether we will continue to require work to live a decent life, or if we will decide that everyone needs to live a decent life as a baseline. It's a choice between valuing profits or people; of whether or not people can be made obsolete and left by the wayside like the outdated equipment they used to operate. I would hope the answer is that people come first, but I don't see any indications that we will go down that path. . .
World War 1 did a number on the last round of globalization. Global commerce, in general, seems very good at starting and very poor at surviving regional/global wars.
You can't really call international trade before the wars "globalization". Modern globalization makes a large scale conflict very unlikely, at least until we have to start competing for resources thanks to climate change.
Hah, it very much was globalisation: you had global supply chains for manufactured and raw goods, and countries invested in each other to the tune of huge fractions of their total wealth, and complex financial instruments (mainly based out of london) insuring and managing it all. Just because the US was mainly involved as a place to invest in rather than an investor doesn't mean you should overlook the interdependence of the world at the time.
Everyone was saying globalization makes a large scale conflict very unlikely right up till WW1 started. Parts of The Great Illusion sounds pretty damn similar to modern fellation of globalisation. Misplaced confidence that 'things are different now' gives us stuff like the Great Recession.
This misses most of my point.
Globalization is a very different beast now. It isn't based on military invasion and defense treaties. You cannot really compare the international economic situation before world war one and now at any more than a superficial level.
I mean, I know we still have NATO, but I don't think that Putin's cousin getting shot is going to start a world war anytime soon...
I obviously have missed your point because globalisation back then wasn't based on invasion or defence treaties either? It was based on the often free-ish movement of skilled people (Birmingham had tens of thousands of German engineers in the 1910s), international financing in trillions of dollars and moving goods to wherever they were cheapest to process, HSBC cut its teeth on getting cheap chinese labourers assembling things in Shanghai.
The problem back then was that hold-over political systems in Europe put the political power in the hands of crazy people, not that there wasn't economic interdependence. Financiers testified before parliament that any war with Germany would destroy the UK economy.
We may have gotten to an even greater level of economic linkage nowadays, but we still put political power in dubious and/or autocratic hands (see American Congress, Chinese Communist Party). You're confusing the fact that they did start a war with the idea that there wasn't a globalised economy - there was and it was an utterly insane decision to start the conflict.
In a sense, it's worse for white collar.
With manufacturing, there are at least fuel and time costs shipping shit halfway around the world. You gain something by having your engineers physically at the factory.
If all you have to move is electrons, you don't care how much fuel costs. You've got Skype and e-mail, so who cares if your team of remote workers are on the other side of town, or in India.
You would be surprised. Things like time differences can be huge issues. And remote work locations aren't as easy to run as you think.
The future is bright
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Differences in cultural expectations are also huge. An American developer tasked to work on one module who happens to notice a bug in a different module will usually take the initiative to shoot off an email. An Indian programmer in the same situation is, in my experience, going to think to himself, "Not my field," and ignore it. This doesn't mean the Indian programmer is lazy or dumb, he just has a different sense of delegation than Americans.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Outsourced manufacturing was almost universally terrible for a decade. Not so much anymore, now that it's been established and those countries are on their second (or third) generation of workers.
If cheap isn't the #1 priority, now you can get high quality outsourced manufacturing and still be at a lower price point than 'average' Made in the USA. White collar / service work will get there too.
On the other hand, reshoring is a thing too.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
As is rural outsourcing.