Evidence That H-1B Holders Don't Replace US Workers

Okian Warrior writes: In response to Donald Trump's allegations that H1B visas drive Americans out of jobs, The Huffington Post points to this study which refutes that claim. From the study: "But the data show that over the last decade, as businesses have requested more H-1Bs, they also expanded jobs for Americans." This seems to fly in the face of reason, consensus opinion, and numerous anecdotal reports. Is this report accurate? Have we been concerned over nothing these past few years? Remember, this is about aggregates, rather than whether some specific job has been replaced.

Comments

Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation.

[Penguinisto]

That is incorrect. If the management thinks that they probably have not researched it properly. Once here on their H1-b can moe to any company willing to take over the H1-B.

Actually, you are not fully correct either. Well, ostensibly you are correct, but here's what really happens:

* The vast majority of H1-B workers are tied to Infosys, Tata, Wipro or some other India-HQ'd company as their sponsor, which means if the worker complains, said worker is recalled to India and quickly replaced. Huge corps like Nike *love* this kind of arrangement (this is a real-world example - Nike is a huge customer of Infosys). This in turn gives the client corporation (e.g. Nike) full control over their charges while their charges are in the US - one complaint from the corporation, and Infosys/Tata/Wipro does all the dirty work for them and provides a replacement within literal days.

* the second part of your sentence, "...any company willing to take over the H1-B" is the condition that undoes the rule. Kindly tell me how many companies are willingly going to take on someone under those conditions? Doing so w/o a company like Infosys/Tata/etc means expense and paperwork...

QED, 'mano :)

Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation.

[donaggie03]

GP meant Depression in both places it is used. GP did also leave out a clause that would clarify the meaning and tie it to the Great Recession though. Here's what (s)he is trying to say: "..the unemployment rate *now*, if calculated the same way it was calculated during the Great Depression (as opposed to how they've changed the calculation to make the numbers look better) is higher than it was for all but one year of the Great Depression." In other words, GP is claiming that the current REAL unemployment rate is a lot higher than what you hear in the news.