Slashdot Mirror
US Law Allows Low H-1B Wages; Just Look At Apple (networkworld.com)
An anonymous reader writes: If you work at Apple's One Infinite Loop headquarters in Cupertino as a computer programmer on an H-1B visa, you can can be paid as little as $52,229. That's peanuts in Silicon Valley. Average wages for a programmer in Santa Clara County are more than $93,000 a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the U.S. government will approve visa applications for Silicon Valley programmers at $52,229 -- and, in fact, did so for hundreds of potential visa holders at Apple alone. To be clear, this doesn't mean there are hundreds of programmers at Apple working for that paltry sum. Apple submitted a form to the U.S. saying it was planning on hiring 150 computer programmers beginning June 14 at this wage. But it's not doing that. Instead, this is a paperwork exercise by immigration attorneys to give an employer -- in this case, Apple -- maximum latitude with the H-1B laws. The forms-submittal process doesn't always reflect actual hiring goals or wage levels. Apple didn't want to comment for the story, but it did confirm some things. It says it hires on the basis on qualifications and that all employees -- visa holders and U.S. workers alike -- are paid equitably and it conducts internal studies to back this up. There are bonuses on top of base pay. Apple may not be paying low wages to H-1B workers, but it can pay low wages to visa workers if it wanted. This fact is at the heart of the H-1B battle.
Apple's next generation replacement for macOS, tvOS, and iOS will be written in PHP.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Government benefits from importing cheap labor. Rich landowners (now corporations) benefit from cheap labor. History is replete with rich people trying to get richer by importing slaves and/or indentured servants.
It never works out well for society in the long run, but in the long run you're dead anyways, so might as well make some more money and bribe some more gov't officials while you're here, right?
Doesn't matter which political party is in power, doesn't matter whether a politician is a leftist or a rightist, they ALWAYS import more cheap labor... because they want to benefit the rich (and by extension, themselves). Trump ran a campaign saying he will put a stop to this, and now that he's in power he's already he's backpedaling. He's just turning into Clinton Lite. I'll bet you large sums that if Bernie was elected, right about now he will be finding excuses to import more cheap labor too.
How about we just allow these H1B candidates to immigrate? Then they can be citizens and pay taxes on whatever salary they accept. They might even buy some foreclosed houses.
L visas let the employer pay the foreign employee's home town wage for up to a year while in the US. When I lived in China for a couple of years I interviewed with the local IBM office about database consulting. They wanted to fly me to the US on an L visa while paying the local wage of about $1K USD which would be OK there in town but not in L.A. The hiring manager assured me on the 3rd level interview that they did it all the time and it was no problem. Then I mentioned that as a US citizen I couldn't be sent on any kind of visa and I couldn't work in the US for sub-minimum wage. He hung up and I couldn't get him to answer when I called back. Since they wanted to hire and send me immediately but an L visa requires a prior year of employment, minimum, they were obviously quite handy at lying on the paperwork. Think about this the next time big blue sends in a consultant from another country.
there's training. An H1-B comes from a country where the cost of living is a fraction of mine. You could triple those wages and they'd still be a good value for the money.
The program needs to be shut down. It was created to solve a labor shortage that never existed. Companies just don't want to train. If you want to work in America you invest in America. If you don't like it you can leave. We've got plenty of everything anyone would want.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If companies would be required to pay at least $120,000 as one bill in the House requires, all the H1b problems go away.
Tech companies don't want to do this.
Why don't we just bring back slavery? It would be more honest.
But there is a shortage of STEMs with 20+ years experience willing to work for 40k a year. It's absolutely impossible to find any.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If H-1B visas really are used to hire the best, brightest, and most rare talents - then a minimum wage of $150k/year should be no problem.
This would solve the problem instantly.
However, I suspect that instead of asking for larger H-1B visa caps, most H-1B visas would go unused.
Low wages is the entire point of the H1B program.
Visas should only be allowed for positions posted with a salary of $250,000 or higher. There's plenty of qualified and/or trainable talent for jobs under that level.
Placement companies should get 1% of the annual take home pay for the candidate upon retention. One payment, one time.
By taking away the low cost incentive to the hiring companies and the huge profit from the consulting company the visa program will dwindle pretty quickly.
Then why haven't you already gotten a better one instead of reminding Slashdot daily about your low salary?
Because I'm on a five year mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
(Let's see which pre-written excuse he uses this time.)
You didn't see that one coming.
but $120k isn't nearly enough. Training is expensive, and these people come pre-trained on the cheap thanks to the crazy low cost of living in their countries (supported by a massive underclass, no safety net and no environmental or employee protections). These are suppose to be the best and brightest the world has to offer. Either that or employees that are so desperately needed that training isn't an option. Start at $300k/yr and adjust for double inflation (so they can't cheat there too). That's about what a PH D in a profitable field makes, right?
I think $120k, with control for future inflation, is about right. I have worked for several international companies. They all invariably needed to bring in compliance officers, liaisons to the home office, and similar positions. You really need someone with experience and clout back at the home country. A local person, even one fluent in the language, is not an effective advocate. There would only be a couple of these types of roles in the $100-150k range, all the other employees would be locals (but paid similarly). $300k is too high and would put a damper on investment and hinder international business.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
You forgot "on a platform that is only 5 years old" ;)
"but it can pay low wages to visa workers if it wanted. This fact is at the heart of the H-1B battle."
No. This battle is not just about the wages paid the H-1B workers, it is allowing allowing there to be any H-1B workers if there are US workers who could perform the task at any price or do so with reasonable training (in high tech environments new employees generally need up to 12 months to get up to full speed).
H1B workers should not be allowed in to keep current wage levels, to reduce leverage skilled employees have in the local free market, and certainly not to replace/displace local workers. H1B workers are for when local talent does not exist. Period. The same is also true of the back door using accelerated degrees from foreign nations to get student student visas for US grad schools. US schools might be willing to sell out since these students pay max tuition and US companies having programs which then pay for/reimburse the education costs might make this feasible but it isn't in the overall interest of the United States.
Then why not move to that rural area?
Because Silicon Valley offers perks that might make it worth living in poverty. Maybe it's the access to infrastructure, better job conditions, better health care, better career prospects, nicer weather, better beaches, etc.
I don't get all those things where I live (Alabama). I telework, so I could move to the bay area and nothing about my job would change. But my employer isn't going to provide a higher wage for the same work. No employer would, nor should they be forced to.
Everybody talks about cost-of-living. They never seem to talk about perks-of-living.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Then why not move to that rural area?
I'm trying to negotiate moving to a low cost area but my employer is reluctant to let me go from Silicon Valley. They have an extremely hard time finding people to fill the positions here. They don't want to pay the average $108K per year salary because workers in New York City, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere will want a pay increase. I'm not moving anywhere unless I have a job to go to.
Because Silicon Valley offers perks that might make it worth living in poverty.
I was born and raised here. My parents were born in the middle of the Great Depression, knew what poverty was, and lived a modest lifestyle (not that mother didn't try to spend every dime). I live a modest lifestyle in Silicon Valley, save 20% of my income, and I'm content with what I have. Just because I have no desire to own two Tesla cars at the same time doesn't mean I'm living in poverty.