Apparently Congress' "buy American" clause in the bailout funds is having its desired effect: Bank of America has rescinded its job offers to foreign MBAs. I suspect that Bank of America is at least as motivated by a need to reduce headcount as it is by fear of Congress. But cutting your recruitment based on country of origin, rather than skills and fit, does not seem like the most efficient way to do it.
As a committed free trader--and an MBA who went through the mass layoffs of the last recession--my sympathy is all with the MBAs. These are people who mostly aren't eligible for scholarships or subsidized student loans; they've borrowed or spent close to $100,000 in America to get their degree, many of them in hopes of staying here. They're intelligent, highly skilled, and promise to be net contributors to the tax system . . . so America kicks them in the teeth and sends them home without a job.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Honestly, there are probably a lot of MBAs that are American that need the jobs right now. Given that fact, I can't get worked up over this.
I feel bad for them; but we should have trade protections given the fact that the Europeans do too.
"and promise to be net contributors to the tax system"
I don't know about that. If they're here they take my job and I go on unemployment.
America first. Free traders are those who have no loyalty to their country or heritage - no conscience even.
Expect to see a great deal more of this if things gets worse.
John: If they plan to stay here, then they are benefiting the country, so the loyalty to country argument is moot. Unless you are related to those whose job they might take, then there is no loyalty to heritage argument either. There is only loyalty to birthright.
"America first. Free traders are those who have no loyalty to their country or heritage - no conscience even."
Also, we stew and eat small American children for fun and profit. Puppies too. But only the adorable ones.
I remember when Milton Friedman pointed out, correctly, that H-1B visas for computer workers were just another government subsidy. It's not a bad thing to lose the ability of large corporations with large HR staffs with political pull to manipulate the immigration laws to get access to cheaper labor than other, smaller and less connected, firms.
(Labor whose residency in the country is contingent on their working hard for their employer - a signal native workers can't, by definition, send.)
Perhaps the market for MBAs are different, but probably not.
Rorty, H1-B workers usually get paid more, and never less, than those around them (pre-vailing wage requirements are on the high end of industry standard). There is no subsidy of the sort you're thinking.
The fact is, these workers are more expensive for a company to hire. The only incentive is that they really are the best candidates for the jobs. Any movement to shut them out only hurts our economy and the long-term health of our nation.
We want to attract the best and the brightest, no?
John - they come, they take the job, hopefully they produce more goods and services, thus increasing demand for goods and services, thus increasing demand for employment, thus getting you a job. There's no conflict between "America first" and letting foreigners take jobs, because more working age people generate more wealth.
Look at it this way, population of the USA in 1790 was 3.9 million. Population of the USA in 2000 was 280 million. If jobs were a zero-sum (more people arrive = less jobs) and there was full employment in 1790, the US unemployment rate would be 99% by now, (assuming the increase in working age population was proportional). It ain't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
Tracy, come on. The fallacies! The goggles do nothing!
Tim,
The subsidy comes from the fact that small companies, say without a savvy and expensive HR staff, can't get the visas to hire the workers. Hence it's a subsidy to the larger company; they get value from a government service (immigration) that is not available to their competition. How is that not a subsidy?
Incentives due to salary are hard to backtrace. These workers are almost certainly bright. However they get a special valuable signal on their resume - "if I don't perform my labor to your liking, I will be deported to rural china or Kolkata upon termination of my employment." That signal is both credible and valuable; I'd pay highly for it in my workers.
As an American, I wouldn't sign such a contract though - I couldn't, nor would I want to.
John, it ain't "your job", unless you have an unexpired contract which obligates an employer to pay you for labor performed. The same "buy American" meatheadism has resulted in generations of American autoworkers and their management thinking that they have some sort of inalienable right to make an inferior prioducts for several decades, and not suffer the ultimate consequence. Screw that. One of the reasons why this country is in it's current condition is that so many people have forgotten, or never learned, how to get their ass out of bed before dawn, put their damned shoulder to the wheel, and flat-out out compete all current and potential competitors. If some schlep from Mumbai can arrive here, spend a 100K on an MBA, and make himself appear to be a better hire than a similar schlep from Hoboken, then the Hoboken schlep needs force himself to get better. When did accepting inferiority become part of the "heritage"? Is "loyalty" to country a synonym for an acceptance of the 2nd-rate?
While I dislike the provision as much as you, the least you could do is describe it accurately.
The way I heard it on the radio, the clause states that if a company receiving TARP funds lays off any workers that are US citizens, it can't then hire foreigners. It wasn't clear to me whether that meant for the same position, or in general. But anyway, that's my understanding.
John:
counterpoint: Cayman. The islands were founded on free trade, and the nation's very survival depends on it, so there is at least one very obvious class of people that betray neither their conscience nor heritage nor country by embracing free trade.
I work in an academic lab doing biomedical research. The large increase in NIH funding from the stimulus package is great news for us, but we just received a letter from our department that such money is to be earmarked for spending on employees that are US citizens and equipment that is US-made. . . definitely NOT something that ensures the highest quality of research for the money spend. (One only has to see the dominance of 'foreigners' in graduate-level or post-doctoral positions in medical research to realize that)
Let's hope these measures maximize how much the US gains from the stimulus - I, for one, am skeptical.
Tim Maguire,
You are misinformed. True there is a “prevailing wage” requirement in the H-1B law. There are also rules to determine it. When those rules are applied they result in a wage considerably less than Americans make. H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker. Once hired they can not easily change jobs. In other words the H-1B is a subsidy.
You need a plan for the workers who are here and unemployed. You are overlooking that.
You are the same people who thought it a grand idea to bring slave labor here, destroy their culture and then "fee" them into society where we are now left with crime, welfare, and a whole host of other social evils. Same with European immigrants brought here by manufacturing business in the 19th and 20th century. Use 'em and dump 'em.
Direwolfc says
"The large increase in NIH funding from the stimulus package is great news for us, but we just received a letter from our department that such money is to be earmarked for spending on employees that are US citizens and equipment that is US-made. . . definitely NOT something that ensures the highest quality of research for the money spend."
This is what worries me about this aspect of the stimulus proposal, as well. It's hard for me to imagine any science or engineering department at a reputable university operating successfully without a substantial contribution from the non-(US citizen) population.
Cayman's founded on free trade? Or founded on tax shelters?
Just wondering. Because there is a difference.
H1B visas are not really a "subsidy". They serve more as an adjustable barrier to trade. As one commenter above noted, it is harder for smaller firms to successfully access this system. If the barrier is opened wider, then the rent-seeking is less effective- and vice versa.
MM writes: "They're intelligent, highly skilled, and promise to be net contributors to the tax system"
No, no they're not. They're just younger, cheaper, and more at the mercy to their employers than American MBAs.
Tim Maguire, you are a complete dipshit. Companies intentionally post job ads for which only the targeted H1-B is qualified for. The immigration lawyers themselves admit this [1].
To the rest of you free traders, enjoy living in some Mumbai/Ciudad Juarez shit-hole when you reach the washed-up age of 40.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
My son had occasion to drive around an Indian classmate of his as they were interviewing for jobs while going through an MBA program. This guy had graduated number 1 in his class from one of the top technical institutes in India. He didn't get hired in investment banking which BofA exited later. At the time they wanted him to take a job in programming, but he took a job dealing with customers in an LA office. In the future, a smart person will be aware that the word 'America' in a title means some variant of 'No Irish need apply.'
Hey Will Allen:
The next time my country needs something from me (such as to fight its wars) I'll tell them it's not my job.
Looks like the "Bank of Amigo" learned their PR lesson from a couple of years ago when they wanted to give credit cards to illegal aliens without Social Security Numbers (after requiring SSNs from US Federal employees).
That said, have they retained the workers with the right skills for this economy? Only time will tell.......
Always nice to find a point of agreement, James. As is often the case in discussions in which a lack of "loyalty" is asserted to exist, "loyalty" strangely tends to be thought of as a quality that only one party is required to have. How about a "loyalty" test which requires the domestic MBA to demonstrate his devotion to his fellow countrymen by providing labor which is superior to that of the foreign MBA?
Oh, I see, John. Your view of loyalty is that you need not risk your physical safety in defense of a society which you live in, unless you are also guaranteed to be able to sell your labor, no matter if another human being's labor is preferred by the purchaser.
Will Allen,
Give everyone and his mother an MBA and then watch them tear each other apart for a job. Meanwhile the "MBA Schools" count their money. Ahh, the American dream. Every generation has to deal with some sham and this is ours.
Staash, I've competed in brutal environments my entire life. You want to konw what hurts? Try working without pay for six months or a year in pursuit of a profit or contract which never arrives. No, the plight of MBAs, sadly bereft of salaries, doesn't tug at my heartstrings. Let'em go open drycleaners, like the jamoke who just got off the boat from Seoul, now knowing a word of English.
John, if your point is that a lot of MBAs (at least the ones willing to work their asses off) would be better served by spending their 100k on a drycleaning business, we agree.
"Is this view of yours based on your racism, or on your mediocrity?"
I'd say it's the latter, although I'm not a big fan of other cultures, and I make no apologies for it. The reality is that the vast majority of people are a lot less special (and far more replaceable) than they really think they are, and that includes our 99.99% highly overrated foreign labor.
As a relatively mediocre person, I'd like to have preference for non-marginal employment in my hometown over a foreigner. My ancestors built this country and fought for it; I'll be damned if I'm going to let my birthright be taken away from me.
If you have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself. Of course, by advocating such a viewpoint, you're already fucking yourselves and your almost assuredly mediocre children, so I'm not really saying much.
"But Jacob said, 'First sell me your birthright.' Esau said, 'Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?' And Jacob said, 'First swear to me"; so he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright."
Still so relevant today...
Staash, please get off your ass, and stop coasting on the efforts of your ancestors. Either that, or just shut up.
Will Allen,
I agree wholeheartedly. But that didn't stop the B schools from taking their money. The middle class gets screwed again. Welcome to America.
Now if you will excuse me I should get back to my job before a foreigner takes it.
Will Allen: "please get off your ass, and stop coasting on the efforts of your ancestors. Either that, or just shut up."
I take it that you're against inheritance as well? Wouldn't want our children to be "coasting on the efforts" of their parents, would we?
John, the B schools are in the business of selling diplomas, like the Jonas Brothers are in the business of selling concert tickets. Unless you can find an explicit promise by a B school that it's graduates were guaranteed a job at salary x, or position y, then I'd say B school students are getting a raw deal about as much as the typical 13 year old girl infatuated by crummy musicians.
Will Allen said:
Unless you can find an explicit promise by a B school that it's graduates were guaranteed a job at salary x, or position y, then I'd say B school students are getting a raw deal about as much as the typical 13 year old girl infatuated by crummy musicians.
Yes, I noticed that disclaimer in big, neon lights on their recruiting literature. How silly of me.
I don't know what's worse -- that Congress is so stupid as to chase the world's best and brightest out of the US as the rest of the world grows more and more competitive; or that so many people just in this forum don't care that our xenophobic policies will push us down the toilet.
The smartest piece on this yet was by the Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11016270
It's horrifying that there are 13 million illegal, uneducated migrants in the US, but we somehow see a few thousand of the world's most skilled workers who want to study, create businesses and raise their kids in America as a threat. Do we want to compete, or not? You can't wish away immigration, but our policies incentivize being illegal and unskilled rather than having a degree and taking the legal route -- it's simply easier to cross the Rio Grande with a smuggler than it is to get an H-1B visa.
Even English and Canadian friends have nearly insurmountable difficulties renewing work visas. One friend -- a Canadian who graduated from Cambridge -- was sent to an ICE detention facility after flying into Houston with a work visa that had only a month before it expired (she'd been denied a renewal because her major, English, didn't "qualify" her to be a charity worker teaching kids in the Bronx to read). She spent a night in a cold cell in Texas with no phone call allowed, and no clothes or blanket aside from the shorts and tank-top she was wearing. All because she majored in English.
Stop grumbling about people "taking my job" and get an MBA or PhD to compete against them. I'd rather have a highly educated foreign-born worker getting a job here than giving his job to an underqualified, lazy, entitled American and forcing the foreigner to stay at home and compete against the rest of us.
Nope, Staash, I wouldn't. When my father died, he gave me the princely sum of a set of golf clubs, a modest firearm collection, a gold coin worth $200, and then gave a bunch to charity. My mother will do similarly.
The most valuable inheritance a parent can give a child is the knowlege of hard and intelligent labor, because that is the only damned thing humans have which is worth anything. I know for a fact that my Grandmother didn't work until she was 88 so I could lounge around in comfort.
I don't know about that. If they're here they take my job and I go on unemployment.
Are people still not aware of the existence of the lump of labor fallacy?
Nobody has the balls to bring this up for consideration in Congress, but immigration has a stimulative effect on the economy, and for economic reasons alone we ought to be considering nice, healthy increases in the number of green cards we hand out.
John, the Jonas Borthers don't have disclaimers on their concert tickets informing girls that their "music" is tripe, either. By all means, though, if you believe that the B school you attended made a fraudulent promise regarding what job you were guaranteed to have, file a lawsuit; it should be the mother of all class-action litigation.
Companies intentionally post job ads for which only the targeted H1-B is qualified for. The immigration lawyers themselves admit this...
Of course they do, Staash. And that's because the government requires them to do so. If you've got a person you want to hire who -- heaven forbid! -- happens to be a foreigner -- the government requires you to post an ad "proving" you've tried to find an American. It's a stupid regulation.
Jasper, you are correct, of course. Not that being correct means anything in our political environment.
"that so many people just in this forum don't care that our xenophobic policies will push us down the toilet."
Just like Japan's xenophobic policies have pushed them down the toilet?
"You can't wish away immigration"
Oh, we can't? I suppose we've never restricted immigration or enforced immigration laws in the past? I suppose we haven't, because, if we had, surely these "xenophobic policies" would have "push[ed] us down the toilet".
"I'd rather have a highly educated foreign-born worker getting a job here than giving his job to an underqualified, lazy, entitled American and forcing the foreigner to stay at home and compete against the rest of us."
The only workers that foreigners displace are unqualified and lazy? That's news to me. It has nothing to do with the fact that they're cheaper and in a quasi-indentured servitude to their employer, correct?
"net contributors to the tax system" who start by taking a taxpayer subsidized job?
America isn't kicking in them in the teeth and sending them home without a job - they are still free to find a job in the private sector which Bank of America no longer is. If we deport them we can revisit the idea of kicking them in the teeth and sending them home without a job.
I'd like to have preference for non-marginal employment in my hometown over a foreigner. My ancestors built this country and fought for it; I'll be damned if I'm going to let my birthright be taken away from me.
Staash: How does allowing immigrants (such as your ancestors) to come here and grow the economy -- as we've been doing for three centuries -- constitute giving away anybody's "birthright?"
Will Allen writes: "I know for a fact that my Grandmother didn't work until she was 88 so I could lounge around in comfort."
Will, there's a difference between "lounging around in comfort" and wanting an honest day's work for an honest day's pay in one's country of origin. Personally, I'd be willing to pay a moderate premium on labor if it keeps my fellow countrymen from sinking into the underclass, where they and their offspring will undoubtedly end of taxing the system more in the long-run.
Staash – your frustrations seems to defy simple logic and reasoning…so I guess no point in arguing with you.
Although you must know that Employment based Green-Card applications cannot be filed without a stringent check and requirement to first find an American Citizen for that position. I am in HR and have had to refuse a number of GC aspirants since we found comparable American Citizens who fit the role. FYI.
Jasper writes: "Staash: How does allowing immigrants (such as your ancestors) to come here and grow the economy -- as we've been doing for three centuries -- constitute giving away anybody's "birthright?""
It diminishes the influence me and mine have over our government and society. In my opinion, the economic gains aren't worth the trade.
Max writes: "I am in HR and have had to refuse a number of GC aspirants since we found comparable American Citizens who fit the role. FYI."
Then you're not writing the job description properly. Perhaps you should be replaced with a more qualified foreigner.
Staash, what constitutes an "honest days work for an honest days pay" is a matter of what agreements people voluntarily enter into. You don't like the fact someone won't voluntarily enter into an agreement of your liking if they can hire whom they would prefer to hire, thus you wish to use state power to prevent them from exercising their prefrence. There are lot of valid descriptions of this wish of yours, but "honest" ain't one of them.
@staash
"It has nothing to do with the fact that they're cheaper and in a quasi-indentured servitude to their employer, correct?"
So end the system of quasi indentured servitude. Problem solved.
I think you have some misunderstanding on how the H1B system works. I don't believe that people get deported simply for loosing their job.
Staash: My job is not to write job descriptions…they are done by the hiring manager based on role and skill set requirements. Only if you knew how the real world works.
Will Allen writes: "You don't like the fact someone won't voluntarily enter into an agreement of your liking if they can hire whom they would prefer to hire, thus you wish to use state power to prevent them from exercising their prefrence."
Yes, and I also favor consumer protection laws to prevent parties from voluntarily entering into contracts that could have harmful (and therefore costly) consequences. Call me a socialist, I guess.
As for the honest day's pay part, I almost left that out because I expected this type of nitpicking in response. My larger point was that keeping our fellow citizens employed (at wages that prevent civil unrest) is cheaper than the alternative.
I think you have some misunderstanding on how the H1B system works. I don't believe that people get deported simply for loosing their job.
Ken: actually, H1Bs do indeed lose their status if they lose their jobs. IIRC they have 30 days to find another job. Even in good times that's not easy as a lot of employers think there's simple too much hassle involved with hiring foreigners and won't bother to even entertain applications from H1Bs. A good friend of mine -- a brilliant woman originally from mainland China -- has been in the position of facing deportation on a couple of occasions since arriving in the states 7 years ago to get a master's degree. On one such occasion she had to switch her visa back to a student visa (J1, I think) and pony up ten grand to some local degree factory -- just in order to buy time, as her job search required more than a month.
Incidentally, I reckon she's purchased at least $400,000 worth of goods and services since arriving here, and paid at least $150,000 in taxes. So much for those leeching foreigners.
And yes, H1Bs ought to have more freedom to seek out better employment options (say, after 12 months). That would be better for them, better for the US economy, and better for US workers.
zic,
Yes, founded, more or less, on free trade, back in the pirate days when nobody really had enough control to charge tariffs. Tax sheltering is merely an exciting modern development of that free trader (pirate) tradition.
(Ha ha, only serious)
Oh, yes, Staash, the prospect of rioting MBAs, risking life and limb rather than seeking work outside of what they came to stupidly think was guaranteed them, is indeed a frightening prospect.
Yes, and laws, for instance, which require loan terms to be clearly stated are rather similar to laws which prevent an employer from hiring the MBA prospect whom he thinks will make him the most profit. Really, really similar. Really.
Look, I appreciate the fact that you plainly stated that you value your mediocrity more than you value your fellow citizens' freedom, but it would be better if you didn't insult your ancestors by saying they left that to you as an inheritance.
Jasper writes: "Incidentally, I reckon she's purchased at least $400,000 worth of goods and services since arriving here, and paid at least $150,000 in taxes. So much for those leeching foreigners."
I don't recall anyone suggesting that the foreigners are "leeches". I readily concede that they're a short-term (if often overestimated) economic boon. My concern is with the long-term economic and social consequences of pushing the native-born (many of whom pay vastly greater sums for their education) further down the ladder.
Jasper continues: "And yes, H1Bs ought to have more freedom to seek out better employment options (say, after 12 months). That would be better for them, better for the US economy, and better for US workers."
I generally agree with this, although I'd tweak to grant a (small) set number of foreigners each year very permissive visas, selected by the results of a standardized aptitude test. The work-based need gap can be filled by training the native born or logistically costly outsourcing.
Will Allen writes: "Look, I appreciate the fact that you plainly stated that you value your mediocrity more than you value your fellow citizens' freedom, but it would be better if you didn't insult your ancestors by saying they left that to you as an inheritance."
Funny, my ancestors unionized when they got the chance, and they vastly improved their living conditions by doing so. I don't think they'd have a problem with those of us looking out for our own interests or trying to preserve their cultural heritage.
Staash, there is nothing about forming a union which necessarily destroys a fellow citizen's freedom, although some unions do go down that path, and nothing in forming a union which inherently promotes mediocirty at the expense of other citizens' freedoms. Centerfielding and airline piloting, for instance, are skills which have demonstrably gotten much better under unionization. I don't know your ancestors history, so I obviously coudn't say whether they shared your preference for mediocrity over fellow citizens' freedoms, but there is nothing about unionization per se which tells us that it is the case.
Does no part of your "cultural heritage" include respecting your fellow citizens' freedoms, and pushing yourself very, very hard in order to maximize your value to others?
Rather than focus on U.S. vs. ex-U.S., I guess I just have a hard time feeling sorry for any MBA, from anywhere, right about now.
"net contributors to the tax system"? Maybe. Net contributors to society? Now there's a discussion worth seeing.
Companies that hire H-1b workers don't have to post job ads. You do however have to obtain a prevailing wage determination to ensure that you are paying that foreigner at least the prevailing wage in the given geographic location and occupation. The job ads are only posted if you decide to permanently hire the person and pursue permanent residency (green card) for them, since H-1bs are only given for a maximum period of 6 years. It's one of the many steps you have to take to ensure that US workers were considered for the job.
Most companies that hire foreign workers through the H-1b program are doing so because they are the most qualified. Not because the companies want to go through the H-1b lottery system and to pay attorney and government filing fees, only to find out that they may not be able to keep that foregin worker down the road. Also, if you are looking to hire someone with an advanced degree in math or science from a US University, you will need to recruit a foreign worker because Americans aren't getting those degrees.
Jasper: Student Visas are called F-1
The work-based need gap can be filled by training the native born
Ah, the infamous fallacy of "training"! I thought I'd keep my foreign-born former-H1B nose safely away from this thread, but this one broke through.
Look Staash, circus dogs are trained. Maybe you can safely say that truck drivers or assembly line workers are trained -- I won't pick a bone with that since I've never been one. Now the engineers -- they learn. As in "do the work themselves", not "have the work done on them". Those that are "trained" aren't worth the paper their certificates are printed on. I don't even want to get started on scientists, doctors or lawyers.
What's that to do with immigration and economic policy? Simple -- you can't easily adjust the numbers of those willing to spend their lives doing a lot of hard mental work for relatively little gain. Yes, maybe, just maybe, lawyers are in it for the money. Engineers can't be -- not the good ones anyway -- business and management pays more. Where am I going with that? The pros are in it, not the least, because they frigging LIKE what they are doing. And if you know of a way to grow more people that like particular occupation or, even better, make existing people like it, you're well on the way to your personal world domination.
If not, however, consider importing whatever slice of the world's supply you can get your hands on.
Jasper: True, when an H-1b holder loses their job, they lose their status, but they don't necessarily face deportation unless they have overstayed their legal status.
Ignoring the moral argument, Max, and focusing entirely on the practical, you are correct. Every society is always in desperate need of more highly motivated intelligent people. There are NEVER enough of them, or even close to being enough of them, and every society should accept such people whenever they voluntarily seek to enter and renmain law-abiding.
Staash:
"I don't recall anyone suggesting that the foreigners are "leeches". I readily concede that they're a short-term (if often overestimated) economic boon. "
Whew! What a relief! I was worried my English/Scots ancestors from the late 18th and early 19th century might have been leeches. (Chances are that some were and some weren't, of course.)
Now all we have to do is clarify this 'short-term' concept. I suppose your forebears in American date from...hmmmm...pre-1585?
When exactly did immigration stop being good for the country? After your ancestors got here, I know, but right after? Or, like, about the time you hit the job market?
"The pros are in it, not the least, because they frigging LIKE what they are doing. And if you know of a way to grow more people that like particular occupation or, even better, make existing people like it, you're well on the way to your personal world domination."
And I would counter by saying the vast majority of those employed in the software profession are not pros. We're not talking kernel programmers here, Max; these guys are far more likely to be Powerbuilder or VB devs. That takes training, not specialized expertise.
As far as passion, a lot of these guys are mercenaries plain and simple. They're just in it for the money, and would gladly drop the profession if something more lucrative came along. Trust me, you can see this in their sloppy code.
I'm all for inviting the truly gifted and specialized to the country. Hell, I wouldn't have my job otherwise. Still, it's important to realize that these folks are the exception rather than the rule. Our policies should reflect that.
Will Allen writes: "every society should accept such people whenever they voluntarily seek to enter and renmain law-abiding."
There's two ways to remain law-abiding. One is by obeying the existing laws. They other is by changing them. I take it that you're not at all uncomfortable with trading cultural sovereignty for a quick buck.
"When exactly did immigration stop being good for the country?"
How about when we have 10% native unemployment and a welfare state?
The more gentlemanly way to do this would have been to not make any more offers of employment to the affected category. A new hire out of an MBA program ideally goes through interviews and an internship prior to his last year in the MBA program, then has an offer in hand during that year. No one not a citizen would have interviewed with BofA a year ago if they expected the rules to change.
Excelllent argument for doing away with the welfare state, Staash, although one should make clear that what is commonly thought of as being a welfare recipient comprises a small slice of the population, a slice which is dwarfed by the huge number of people belonging to the slice which has the highest median net worth by age cohort, and has it's government assistance increase every year.
The Megan McArdle Blog- rugged libertarian individualism for American workers, trillions in subsidies for investment banks and commercial banks!
Staash, given your definition of "cultural heritage" is not inclusive of respecting the freedoms of your fellow citizens, I'd like a very precise definition of "cultural sovereignity" from you prior to answering that question.
So how many smart, well-connected foreigners with their lives ahead of them and a lot of knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the US, have just become pissed-off?
Max writes: "And if you know of a way to grow more people that like particular occupation or, even better, make existing people like it, you're well on the way to your personal world domination."
Sure. How about some sense of security that you won't become expendable upon reaching forty years old? How about conferring engineering the social status it richly deserves rather than looking down on it as something only marginalized foreigners do?
Your argument seems to imply that the pros are the ones who are going to do it regardless, even for free. If your definition of pro is strictly limited to Richard Stallman, then you may have a point.
And I would counter by saying the vast majority of those employed in the software profession are not pros.
You would. And these are exactly who you would "train".
We're not talking kernel programmers here, Max; these guys are far more likely to be Powerbuilder or VB devs.
Pffffft. I am old enough to have programmed in Fortran II (aka Fortran-58). If you don't think engineering quality matters in IT app development, or in VB code, you're part of the problem. Not to mention that tool choice is often (should I say "nearly always"?) dictated by the same "trained" mentality. "For us, by us" indeed :(
That takes training, not specialized expertise.
Ohhhh... another fallacy! The "specialized expertise" is acquired much faster than the right philosophy, mentality and discipline. Which are exactly the qualities the "trained" people lack. And, incidentally, the ones that make all the difference at time spans beyond one month or so.
Our policies should reflect that.
How, exactly? A Rorschach test for visa applicants designed to detect whether they truly like what they are doing or only pretend to do so? I don't think this is feasible.
There's already an expedited visa program for foreigners who are willing to invest $500k in a business that creates jobs in the U.S. (the EB5 visa, I think). Instead of sending all of these foreign MBAs home, why not try to link them up with EB5 visa applicants looking to start businesses and create jobs here? Just make sure that these businesses intend to create jobs for some American citizens as well. If all the jobs go to foreigners, public opinion will sour on the program and it won't be politically sustainable.
Staash, here's a hint. Every damned person on the planet is expendable, at every point in their life, absent a hard, constant, life-long struggle to make yourself valuable to others. Personally, I look down on Americans who don't value engineering a lot more more than I do foreigners who do engineering, which isn't surprising, since I don't look down on ANY engineers at all.
Sure. How about some sense of security that you won't become expendable upon reaching forty years old?
Why are the engineers any more expendable than other people who work for hire? I am past 40; I certainly don't feel that way even though the current economical situation is not doing me any favors. What situation would you consider more secure, being a union member? Personally, I value the ability to negotiate my own compensation a lot more than any group bargaining power I might gain that way.
How about conferring engineering the social status it richly deserves rather than looking down on it as something only marginalized foreigners do?
Wow, how would you go about it? Make the birthday of Thomas Edison a national holiday? Institute an "engineering history month" in grade school? Not that I am really against the latter... Lord knows it would be an improvement over existing curriculum :) But, get real -- no one can control things like that. Note that lawyers seem to live quite happily despite all the "ambulance chaser" and "shark bait" sentiment.
One of the things that's still great about the career in software engineering (and probably in electronics as well) is that the educational credentials and certification still mean relatively little there compared to other high-IQ professions. I'd be very, very suspicious of any efforts to change that.
...Max... writes: "If you don't think engineering quality matters in IT app development, or in VB code, you're part of the problem."
Of course it matters. Hell, it matters even when doing basic HTML coding. Does that mean that the expertise required to write a compliant web-page is the same as the expertise required to write a video card driver?
I think you're twisting my view of training into think it's just taking a course and getting a certification.
...Max... writes: "One of the things that's still great about the career in software engineering (and probably in electronics as well) is that the educational credentials and certification still mean relatively little there compared to other high-IQ professions. I'd be very, very suspicious of any efforts to change that."
Yes, I agree with you on this.
Does that mean that the expertise required to write a compliant web-page is the same as the expertise required to write a video card driver?
Depends on the page and the driver. Modern video cards are very complex beasts though, so I'll grant that you chose your example carefully :-) In case of "just any driver" I wouldn't be so sure. Hardware-level programming tends to be looked up to by many engineers because they never get a chance to do it in their careers. It is not, however, inherently complex. And, while the hardware interfaces are often badly designed and documented, the wild and unruly programming environment of modern Web browsers is almost impossible to beat in that respect ;)
I don't recall that the US had any problem producing engineers and scientists prior to about 1992. Then something changed. What was it?
I expect it had something to do with the change in the economic composition of the country, a change that seems to have been driven in large part by the MBAs. The status and compensation of engineers and scientists dropped relative to those of people in other professions, and it became less rational for Americans to pursue education in those fields.
I now think of engineering as a kind of craft labor, similar to tool and die making and with similar status. And I say that as someone who comes from a family of engineers. It isn't engineering I despise. In fact, I don't despise tool and die making either. But I do despise the pay and status gap between MBAs/financial types and people in other fields.
So I say, ditch the foreign MBAs and give pay cuts to the American ones. Then pay all the engineers, foreign and domestic, a whole lot more. You'll suddenly find a whole lot of intelligent Americans willing to take the jobs and do them well.
M.C.: the US has been importing engineers and scientists since time immemorial. Not because it "had any problem producing" them, but because there's never enough. Google "brain drain". Then google "Manhattan Project".
And you can't tell me there ever was a time where engineering was more lucrative than management or sales. Or at least that you can remember living during those times :-)
Will Allen,
You strike me as the kind of guy who likes to see people suffer. Peace and harmony, dude, no bad vibes. We all die in the end. Smoke a joint man and relax.
John, you strike me as the kind of guy who adopts a stupidly childish passive aggressive stance, leading to you insulting a person with a baseless and obnoxious observation, followed by a vacuous "no bad vibes" remark.
I'm sorry you think you or someone you know have been scammed. The fact that this isn't true doesn't confer to me some sort of desire to see people unhappy. The road to happiness, however, often lies in the direction of refraining from blaming other people for one's unhappiness.
I don't recall that the US had any problem producing engineers and scientists prior to about 1992. Then something changed. What was it?
"For the next ten years...the United States will need about 50,000 trained engineers to be ready to enter this field every year. Right now the country is only training about half that number."
-The Boy Engineer, 1959
From my first engineering book, given to me at the tender age of 6 from my father, an engineer. Lack of good engineering talent and math and science grads is not new.
How about conferring engineering the social status it richly deserves rather than looking down on it as something only marginalized foreigners do?
I don't see this as the case - I see instead the perception that engineering and math are perceived as "too hard" by the majority of Americans, not a subject beneath them.
How about some sense of security that you won't become expendable upon reaching forty years old?
Personally, I hope this never comes to be. If I ever felt secure and non-expendable, then human nature dictates I'd ceases to scratch and fight to do my absolute best. In which case I'd deserve to get fired. This illustrates the long term problem with unions. When you give someone too much job security, they inevitably become less hungry, less motivated, and less productive. Which makes them a much worse engineer.
Unfortunately too many in the world feel they "deserve" things even if they can't do as good a job as others around them. You only deserve what you can win and keep in a fair competition.
I've always found the MBA grossly overvalued in business. I'm reminded of my drunk, idiot roommate and how much less useful he is compared to a guy I know who earned a CCIE in routers and switches.
Then again, my former roommate did manage to make Director of something or other (presumably vaulting over the battlehardened non-MBAs in operatonal management that made his company what it is) by selling his CEO a pack of lies about having saved the company $300,000 moving the mailroom to a different floor--which doesn't make him any more useful--but is a pretty ingenious little ruse.
I am just really fucking glad that Will Allen does not, and never will, run this place. And really fucking sad that a bunch of Will Allens actually do.
The haves crush the have-nots, Will. There's nothing "voluntary" about having to work for a living. The privileged, able to negotiate their lives, do not understand that, and probably never will.
And dude, part of the reason MBAs are expensive to do is the implicit promise of highly rewarded employment at the end of them; employment that on the whole is doled out as a lottery. If you genuinely believe that those employed are always the cream, you are too naive for this world. They may be the most employable, but that isn't necessarily a measure of how talented, intelligent or hard working they are.
Fuck 'em. Let these pussies go Galt if they can't take a joke.
Dr. Zen –
Instead of ridiculing Will or anyone else – why not accept the challenge to get better, deliver better and get employed better…not giving immigrants or H1s a chance to get employed.
No company wakes up and decides to replace a US worker in US with an H1 for a cheaper salary…they go out for an H1 only if they cannot find someone here. Every organization has one goal in mind – best fit for the job for maximum return in investment, if we cannot deliver they outside to get it, simple as that.
If they need to replace a US worker for money that is outsourcing, which is another discussion altogether.
This is ridiculous. Most people in this thread have no idea how H1Bs work, or how H1Bs even get hired.
Newsflash: It doesn't say "I need an H1B" on the applicant's resume, and they don't ask you in the interview, unless they're specifically NOT hiring H1Bs.
No company like Bank of America or any of the wall street firms actively seek out H1Bs to hire. Hiring decisions are made by hiring managers based solely on the qualifications of the candidate and the needs of the group. Only after the hiring decision is made does the H1B issue, which is handled by HR, come up.
Also, keep in mind that there are british, austrailian, and israeli H1Bs as well, not to mention the fact that H1Bs usually eventually become permanent residents, and then citizens. This is the last path of immigration that bears any semblence to the ellis island stories of hard work and opportunity that are so inspirational when they of your ancestors, but so disgusting to you when they are happening now.
"No company like Bank of America or any of the wall street firms actively seek out H1Bs to hire. Hiring decisions are made by hiring managers based solely on the qualifications of the candidate and the needs of the group. Only after the hiring decision is made does the H1B issue, which is handled by HR, come up."
Watch the Cohen and Grisby seminar that I linked to. You are completely full of shit.
Staash, you have no first hand experience in this. I'm sorry, but it is you who are completely making things up, informed only by your extreme and debilitating xenophobia.
I don't doubt that the number of "cheap H1Bs" is not zero, but these are most definitely NOT employees hired by the big wall street firms, which is what we're talking about here.
Once again: The resumes don't say H1B, the position descriptions don't mention H1B, the interview doesn't mention H1B. H1B is only brought up AFTER the offer is given. That's how it works on wall street. I'm sorry that it destroys your little nativist-orgasm, but that's how it is.
Winston Chang writes: "I don't doubt that the number of "cheap H1Bs" is not zero, but these are most definitely NOT employees hired by the big wall street firms, which is what we're talking about here."
No, the question is whether even a _single_ H1-B hired by a "company like Bank of America or any of the wall street firms" is, in your words, "a cheap H1-B". If that's the case, then what you first wrote is factually incorrect (e.g. completely full of shit).
Personally, I like my odds on this a lot better than yours.
Well, my odds are 1, since I actually know how these firms do their hiring, having seen the process from both the hiring side and the applicant side at multiple wall street firms.
Think of it this way: Why would an H1B even be cheaper at all? An H1B usually gets sponsored for a green card after a year or so on the job (sometimes sooner. I've seen as fast as 2 months), so in a relatively short amount of time there's basically no difference between them and a citizen (who was probably an H1B himself 10 years ago).
Also, the hiring is done here. They don't go to other countries to hire new employees. So H1Bs almost always come from American colleges and have lived in the US for quite a number of years for their studies (the ones that aren't are usually internal transfers, like from the London/Tokyo offices), so the lifestyles and expectations for compensation are going to be similar to that of a citizen anyway. That's why there's no point to hiring only H1Bs or only citizens from the firm's perspective if the paperwork is not a problem for you (and it's not for the big firms). That's why they don't ask if you need an H1B until they hire you.
Winston Chang writes: "Why would an H1B even be cheaper at all? An H1B usually gets sponsored for a green card after a year or so on the job (sometimes sooner. I've seen as fast as 2 months), so in a relatively short amount of time there's basically no difference between them and a citizen (who was probably an H1B himself 10 years ago)."
After a year or so? I find this very surprising to say the least. If that's true, it really blows the notion of the H1-B being a temporary visa right out of the water.
Assuming the employer is responsible for the sponsorship, the employer can effectively use it as a carrot (and, in effect, a wage subsidy) to demand that the H1-B work additional hours. This carrot, as you just admitted, is dangled for "a year or so". That's a fair amount of time for the employer to get the H1-B worker at a reduced rate considering the H1-B worker likely views that subsidy as a significant part of the compensation package.
In the tech industry, I believe, a worker's average tenure with any particular company is around two years. Getting the first year much cheaper seems like quite a bargain, especially if you can just rinse and repeat.
By rinsing and repeating, of course, the industry will steadily grow the supply of labor, thus reducing the cost. That's not to suggest it's a conspiracy or anything, but if all companies prefer H1-Bs over American workers (assuming they are, in fact, equal), then importing new H1-Bs makes a whole lot of collective sense.
Staash: I didn't think I'd return to this discussion, but here goes. H1B has not been conceived, and for the most of its existence, has not been used as a temporary visa. The original reason for its introduction (no, I can't give you a link because I'm quoting the explanations of my own immigration attorney from over 10 years back) was to cut down the lead time on hiring qualified foreigners: LCA+I140 used to take around 6 months back then and companies considered that too long a wait. It is also (or at least has always been while I paid attention) a dual-intent visa which means accepting it is compatible with intent to immigrate as far as INS/USCIS is concerned. The 6-year term used to be sufficiently long to get to I485 filing (that's green card application) all the way till probably 2001 or 2002 and then things went to hell in a basket and people actually started to leave the country in droves at the end of their 6 years (stretchable to 7, actually) simply because they couldn't get their paperwork processed in time.
By the way, the H1B visa used to convey very little leverage to the employer to begin with until quotas started getting filled in the first week of the fiscal year. Before that, the H1B was very easy to get and people with that status did change jobs left and right. It is the LCA for employment-based green card that gives employer serious leverage... I have wasted the Internet boom years that way :(
In short, people who didn't extensively deal with employment-based immigration issues typically have very little clue how things work and how pieces fit together (or don't).
If being intelligent and highly skilled are reasons to let immigrants stay then shouldn't being dumb and unskilled be a reason to keep out immigrants?
I agree America First, as a displaced worker with a disabling factor and nearly completing an MBA with a 4.0 GPA - Just because I am blind, I am cast aside in favor of foreign workers. It has been over 6 years since I lost my job while continually hearing "outsourcing" to save money, and all the while cost of living increasing to the point at nearly driving the country into bankruptcy...Where are the alleged MBA's who supposedly were improving American business and industry during this time?
I have no sympathy for those students who elected to come to this country to learn for there has never been a promise of employment when applying to an institution of learning for any student regardless of nationality. Should American business hire American workers? Yes, after all this is our homeland, not that of others they are merely guest in our country.