Again, this is not unique to tech fields. Lawyers go through a grueling period of clerking and/or becoming an associate before they have any shot of becoming partner or getting a real job at the prosecutor's or public defender's office or striking out on their own. Doctors have many years of internship, residency, and fellowship before they can make any kind of money. Academia is brutal as you try to attain the nirvana that is tenure. Even my stint in retail had a pecking order of sorts, the practical result being to sort out the morons and sociopaths.
I certainly agree. If you let people work, you should let them stay. We are not Dubai, or some Asian country bent on preserving racial or cultural purity. I'm amazed that more green cards aren't being made available along with any expansion of H1Bs.
In my defense, I probably would have considered the iPad if it was available when I bought the Kindle. Also, while not quite up to Apple snuff, the Kindle is a pretty nice machine. It certainly seems more sturdy than the Nexus 7 that my friend has.
I prefer Macs, but always have a PC around as well. I learned a long time ago not to skimp on components:) I'm waiting for my ancient G5 Pro Tower (kids computer) to die so I can replace it with a Mini... it'll probably pay for itself just with electricity!
Instead of wasting students money, the government would be wasting the money - you'd still have the same problem of "sorry, you don't have 5-7 years of experience."
That problem will never go away (though I did go to a school with a strong co-op program built into the curriculum). Most fields require you to "pay your dues". That doesn't make your undergrad a waste of money - it just means you have a few more years of training before you are useful. There was a recent study that showed, at least in the short-term, that associates degrees command a higher salary than either high school diplomas or bachelors degrees. I think that shows that associates degrees are the "sweet spot" of education right now, where government dollars would go furthest. Why educate a student for 13 years, only to stop 2 years shy of peak return-on-investment?
How much work are you going to get done with rolling black or brown outs that are common in both countries?
The money saved on salaries will buy a lot of diesel. Also, while India is a hot mess, the electrical infrastructure in coastal China ain't half bad. Anyway, I agree that my post completely ignores the larger picture of infrastructure. The problem is that our infrastructure is mature and, if anything, deteriorating while theirs is getting built out quite quickly. Our infrastructure advantage is quickly eroding.
It would be a very rare occurrence for anyone living in the U.S. to start a company in another country regardless of the talent pool unless they already had a company in the U.S. that proved successful.
This is true, but we educate massive numbers of foreigners in our university system. A good portion of them come from the elite classes of their respective countries. We shouldn't want them to go home to start their businesses.
no matter where you go you can probably find qualified people as long as you're willing to pay the prevailing wage
Agreed, but the US is pretty much at the top of the heap in terms of wages. If you are looking for a place to do business, this would be a distinct "negative".
That's true, but it's even more true for most other recent graduates making $20k or more less. You might have to get a starter house or a roommate for a while. I rented, at first with a roommate, until I was in a position to buy (and until my student loans were paid off!). Even then, it was only possible to get a big place due to my wife's salary. On my salary I was limited to a condo or row home.
You'd be crazy to think that all molecular biology PhDs are equally valuable.
While that's true, all other things being equal, I'd take a population of people with PhDs over a population of people without them.
You don't realize that people are born with different talents.
I'm sorry that I led you to believe that.
I'm not suggesting that our immigration policy should literally state things like, "If the person has a PhD, let them in. If they have a Cisco certified whachahoozit, don't." What I'm saying is that our society benefits greatly from having a large pool of people of above average aptitude - a pool that is impossible to achieve without cherry-picking. Any banana republic can educate their own people, but it takes a special place to have the means to pilfer the best and brightest from other groups of people. Our immigration policy should be steered with this kept in mind, even if it superficially seems to depress salaries in STEM fields. This is, and should continue to be, a chief advantage of doing business in the US.
The secret is that Dell and company make high margins on their expensive stuff as well, but they sell so.. much.. low end stuff that the high end gets almost lost in the noise. It wouldn't surprise me if they lost money on the low end, just to be a "total solution". You never hear people bitch that they can't find an affordable Dell!
Personally I feel that advantage is over-rated. If you offer what amounts to a subsidized price on something, people are going to take advantage of that to the detriment of your higher-margin products. I used to own Dell, but sold when I came to this conclusion. I was initially a bit perturbed when Apple announced the iPad Mini, but I was pleased with the price point. If they can maintain margins like that, then I don't really care about pilfering sales from the larger iPad. Myself? I own a subsidized Kindle:)
How is he risky or lucky? He and his wife both had condos. When they got married they borrowed against the condo equity and bought a house, while leasing out the condos. When the economic crash hit, they used their savings to buy another investment property and a vacation property in Florida. Taking advantage of the new lower interest rates, they refinance all of their loans to no longer than 15 years, which means everything will be paid off when they retire.
All of those decisions (except the vacation property) were prudent ones based on cash flow. No flipping, no speculation. The vacation property is an affordable luxury that had a staggeringly low price at the time. If it builds equity, great. Otherwise it's a nice place to visit.
How does teaching factor in? He has no debt from his postgraduate work, since the school paid for it. He has solid union benefits, which gives him a lot of security in his cash flow. His salary follows a predictable, steady increase throughout his career, which makes planning easy. He has summers off, which lets he and his wife each take a lucrative seasonal job during peak tourist season. He can retire before he is 50, and at that point either really retire or start working again to make even more money on top of his pension. It is a sweet gig, though as I mentioned, does not pay well initially and requires a certain kind of temperament. Also, you might have to be willing to move to find the right mix of benefits... I've heard horror stories depending on district. I imagine there are some pretty unhappy Detroit retired school teachers right now...
Many people INTEND to go back home, but they don't ultimately. One of my least-favorite co-workers is hell-bent on going home... eventually. Problem is he has kids who are very much Americans, even if that eats at him every waking hour. He can't go home unless he wants to see his kids very infrequently, because they aren't going to join him. He's a really miserable SOB.
If the green card system weren't so damned slow, I'd agree. It took my co-worker over 3-1/2 years to get his green card, and this is a guy with a B.S. in mechanical engineering. Meanwhile, his completely destitute parents got sponsored by his sister and got their green card in 2-1/2 years.
Also, if they are more attractive than a college grad, why are they only getting about the same pay as a college grad?
That's a valid point. The direct (micro) effect of hiring an H1B person is to depress the income of a homegrown college grad. However, my contention is that the macro effect of bringing in thousands of smart people is to raise salaries across the board.
If by "business" you mean "corporation", then I'll agree. The thing is, the corporation is really just an extension of government. It gets its charter from government, it is regulated by government. Historically, other types of organization have filled this role - in Soviet times it was the party, in meideival Europe it was the church, in many contemporary societies it is the military. Ostensibly, these organizations are distinct entities, but in reality they have so many interactions with government, and their size gives them so much power in government, that they can be considered one and the same.
Personally, I think the cycle of government regulation of corporation, corporate money back to government is very destructive and needs to be reexamined. Nearly as destructive is the government directly paying public unions, which turn around and throw the same money back at the government.
They aren't "developing" these H1B candidates either, and yet they are available... I don't really have any problem with employers not training people - we don't typically obligate people to stay on like they do in other countries (through a bond, for instance), so it's hard to fault them.
My comment was more directed towards whether we are really getting smart, educated people that we would be crazy to turn away, or ordinary people who have simply had a training course.
Student loans are a disaster and, while a separate issue, I have no problem discussing. them.
Personally, I feel that we should extend compulsory education two more years and make it an Associates degree. We could do this by extending the community college programs we already have, and they could be funded at the federal or state level to avoid the problems we have with uneven funding of primary and secondary education. Once everyone is getting an associates degree or technical training for "free", we could dramatically scale back our Stafford Loan programs. Even if we left the Stafford Loan program as-is, debt would be cut in half for most takers. I think that a high-school degree is no longer sufficient to prepare most people for the working world - and not because the high school degree has become "devalued", but because we have become more productive and our jobs more complex.
Colleges have gotten completely out of control. My wife went to one of the best liberal arts schools on the planet, almost 30 years ago. It's still one of the best and it serves just as many students - but it now has twice as many buildings. Has the education value doubled? I think not. What happened is the cost of education grew by approximately the amount of a Stafford Loan, because the money is "free". We tried to do a good thing, and instead inflated the cost of college for everyone.
This is why the Mac ain't going anywhere. Apple pulls in more profit on their pitiful 5 million PCs than HP, Lenovo, Dell, Acer and Asus make on their combined 53 million PCs. 5% marketshare, 45% of the profits... that's why I'm a stockholder:)
Not at all, but I'm giving some credit to the H1B program. Incidentally, I think most of the credit goes to our excellent university system and liberal education visas. Historically, we have gotten far more rich, educated people to stay here than our population warrants.
RTFA. We already graduate far more STEM people than are employed. We have a shortage of demand, not supply.
Two points: (a) we are in a recession, and (b) Most (many?) STEM graduates end up in non-stem roles such as management or running a business.
One thing that probably should be examined is the types of workers that are granted H1Bs. I'm not sure a Cisco certified what-ever needs to be an H1B. You can take someone fresh out of trade school and get them their certification - I find it a bit hard to believe that there is a true "shortage". Someone with a molecular biology PhD... you'd be crazy not to let them stay in your country.
Magically proclaiming that government is inherently a flawed way to accomplish anything, bordering on the criminal and immoral? That is a fantastical proposition.
While there are certainly short-term successes, I think an observation of history shows that government gravitates toward the corrupt. There always seems to be a ruling class, and they always, eventually, manage to manipulate government to enrich themselves.
I'm not in IT, I'm a mechanical engineer. My company has tried to move our engineering center overseas several times, and has never been successful. They tried to move things to Singapore, but it's a tiny island with a finite labor pool. We found some great engineers, but not enough to do the job - and the turnover is terrible. The same thing happened in China. Big country. Still, a very finite supply of engineers... many of the good engineers go overseas. Turnover is also terrible. The result is they grudgingly stay in the US. I would say that 1/3 or so of the engineers here came on H1B. I'm not sure we'd be as competitive without those engineers.
I don't know if it is possible to do Cisco support from Asia, but if it is those people might have been doomed one way or another.
The whole POINT is to let in talented people who are more attractive than a college grad. Having such a pool of people _inside the US_ is a huge competitive advantage over countries with strict immigration. What in the world keeps American engineering salaries so high if not available talent pool?
The 75-year thing is mostly a political invention. They are required to: (a) Fund their current retirees' health care and pensions. (b) Fund their current employees' health care and pensions.
However, since they were almost completely unfunded before, add that together and you have a 75-year hole to climb out of.
Morally right would be pre-funding the pensions for a saner length of time and then allowing the USPS to raise rates to compensate.
I agree that rates should have gone up. Not funding at 100% I cannot endorse, but I would have been happier to see a 50% funding as a compromise than nothing at all.
Exactly, as a stockholder I only care about marketshare when it starts to drop to a point that become a problem maintaining the ecosystem. The margins are my main concern. If I ever look at marketshare, I want to see "profitshare".
Now that article that I linked disagrees with me. It argues that Apple might eventually lose the smartphone battle as cheap phones become "good enough". I'd argue two things: (a) Apple can still participate in the market with a high-margin cheaper phone. (b) Apple can abandon the market if it becomes unprofitable. They weren't a smart phone maker 7 years ago. They didn't make a (modern) tablet until 3 years ago. They weren't an MP3 maker for a very long time. I believe they are agile enough to use new technology to expand into new markets as the opportunity arises. If they were a one-trick pony I wouldn't be a stockholder. They are now a 3-trick pony:)
Supply and demand is Econ 101, everyone knows that curve. But economics is more complicated than supply and demand.
Have you ever noticed that car dealerships tend to be located close to one another? The idea is that having a huge market of cars will bring in far more customers than putting a single dealership in an isolated place. So even though supply goes up, demand goes up even more and the dealers make more money. My contention is that having the US flush with technical talent keeps companies in the US. What possible reason would your company set up shop in the US if there wasn't a better-than-average talent pool? The salaries are far higher here than in China or India.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) the entire US follows a single immigration policy. There is nothing stopping an H1B worker from moving to another state.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, this is not unique to tech fields. Lawyers go through a grueling period of clerking and/or becoming an associate before they have any shot of becoming partner or getting a real job at the prosecutor's or public defender's office or striking out on their own. Doctors have many years of internship, residency, and fellowship before they can make any kind of money. Academia is brutal as you try to attain the nirvana that is tenure. Even my stint in retail had a pecking order of sorts, the practical result being to sort out the morons and sociopaths.
I certainly agree. If you let people work, you should let them stay. We are not Dubai, or some Asian country bent on preserving racial or cultural purity. I'm amazed that more green cards aren't being made available along with any expansion of H1Bs.
In my defense, I probably would have considered the iPad if it was available when I bought the Kindle. Also, while not quite up to Apple snuff, the Kindle is a pretty nice machine. It certainly seems more sturdy than the Nexus 7 that my friend has.
I prefer Macs, but always have a PC around as well. I learned a long time ago not to skimp on components :) I'm waiting for my ancient G5 Pro Tower (kids computer) to die so I can replace it with a Mini... it'll probably pay for itself just with electricity!
Instead of wasting students money, the government would be wasting the money - you'd still have the same problem of "sorry, you don't have 5-7 years of experience."
That problem will never go away (though I did go to a school with a strong co-op program built into the curriculum). Most fields require you to "pay your dues". That doesn't make your undergrad a waste of money - it just means you have a few more years of training before you are useful. There was a recent study that showed, at least in the short-term, that associates degrees command a higher salary than either high school diplomas or bachelors degrees. I think that shows that associates degrees are the "sweet spot" of education right now, where government dollars would go furthest. Why educate a student for 13 years, only to stop 2 years shy of peak return-on-investment?
That is incredibly simplistic
I agree, but look at what I was replying to!
How much work are you going to get done with rolling black or brown outs that are common in both countries?
The money saved on salaries will buy a lot of diesel. Also, while India is a hot mess, the electrical infrastructure in coastal China ain't half bad. Anyway, I agree that my post completely ignores the larger picture of infrastructure. The problem is that our infrastructure is mature and, if anything, deteriorating while theirs is getting built out quite quickly. Our infrastructure advantage is quickly eroding.
It would be a very rare occurrence for anyone living in the U.S. to start a company in another country regardless of the talent pool unless they already had a company in the U.S. that proved successful.
This is true, but we educate massive numbers of foreigners in our university system. A good portion of them come from the elite classes of their respective countries. We shouldn't want them to go home to start their businesses.
no matter where you go you can probably find qualified people as long as you're willing to pay the prevailing wage
Agreed, but the US is pretty much at the top of the heap in terms of wages. If you are looking for a place to do business, this would be a distinct "negative".
That's true, but it's even more true for most other recent graduates making $20k or more less. You might have to get a starter house or a roommate for a while. I rented, at first with a roommate, until I was in a position to buy (and until my student loans were paid off!). Even then, it was only possible to get a big place due to my wife's salary. On my salary I was limited to a condo or row home.
You'd be crazy to think that all molecular biology PhDs are equally valuable.
While that's true, all other things being equal, I'd take a population of people with PhDs over a population of people without them.
You don't realize that people are born with different talents.
I'm sorry that I led you to believe that.
I'm not suggesting that our immigration policy should literally state things like, "If the person has a PhD, let them in. If they have a Cisco certified whachahoozit, don't." What I'm saying is that our society benefits greatly from having a large pool of people of above average aptitude - a pool that is impossible to achieve without cherry-picking. Any banana republic can educate their own people, but it takes a special place to have the means to pilfer the best and brightest from other groups of people. Our immigration policy should be steered with this kept in mind, even if it superficially seems to depress salaries in STEM fields. This is, and should continue to be, a chief advantage of doing business in the US.
The secret is that Dell and company make high margins on their expensive stuff as well, but they sell so.. much.. low end stuff that the high end gets almost lost in the noise. It wouldn't surprise me if they lost money on the low end, just to be a "total solution". You never hear people bitch that they can't find an affordable Dell!
Personally I feel that advantage is over-rated. If you offer what amounts to a subsidized price on something, people are going to take advantage of that to the detriment of your higher-margin products. I used to own Dell, but sold when I came to this conclusion. I was initially a bit perturbed when Apple announced the iPad Mini, but I was pleased with the price point. If they can maintain margins like that, then I don't really care about pilfering sales from the larger iPad. Myself? I own a subsidized Kindle :)
How is he risky or lucky? He and his wife both had condos. When they got married they borrowed against the condo equity and bought a house, while leasing out the condos. When the economic crash hit, they used their savings to buy another investment property and a vacation property in Florida. Taking advantage of the new lower interest rates, they refinance all of their loans to no longer than 15 years, which means everything will be paid off when they retire.
All of those decisions (except the vacation property) were prudent ones based on cash flow. No flipping, no speculation. The vacation property is an affordable luxury that had a staggeringly low price at the time. If it builds equity, great. Otherwise it's a nice place to visit.
How does teaching factor in? He has no debt from his postgraduate work, since the school paid for it. He has solid union benefits, which gives him a lot of security in his cash flow. His salary follows a predictable, steady increase throughout his career, which makes planning easy. He has summers off, which lets he and his wife each take a lucrative seasonal job during peak tourist season. He can retire before he is 50, and at that point either really retire or start working again to make even more money on top of his pension. It is a sweet gig, though as I mentioned, does not pay well initially and requires a certain kind of temperament. Also, you might have to be willing to move to find the right mix of benefits... I've heard horror stories depending on district. I imagine there are some pretty unhappy Detroit retired school teachers right now...
I'm all for killing H1Bs if the green card process can be ironed out.
Many people INTEND to go back home, but they don't ultimately. One of my least-favorite co-workers is hell-bent on going home... eventually. Problem is he has kids who are very much Americans, even if that eats at him every waking hour. He can't go home unless he wants to see his kids very infrequently, because they aren't going to join him. He's a really miserable SOB.
If the green card system weren't so damned slow, I'd agree. It took my co-worker over 3-1/2 years to get his green card, and this is a guy with a B.S. in mechanical engineering. Meanwhile, his completely destitute parents got sponsored by his sister and got their green card in 2-1/2 years.
Also, if they are more attractive than a college grad, why are they only getting about the same pay as a college grad?
That's a valid point. The direct (micro) effect of hiring an H1B person is to depress the income of a homegrown college grad. However, my contention is that the macro effect of bringing in thousands of smart people is to raise salaries across the board.
If by "business" you mean "corporation", then I'll agree. The thing is, the corporation is really just an extension of government. It gets its charter from government, it is regulated by government. Historically, other types of organization have filled this role - in Soviet times it was the party, in meideival Europe it was the church, in many contemporary societies it is the military. Ostensibly, these organizations are distinct entities, but in reality they have so many interactions with government, and their size gives them so much power in government, that they can be considered one and the same.
Personally, I think the cycle of government regulation of corporation, corporate money back to government is very destructive and needs to be reexamined. Nearly as destructive is the government directly paying public unions, which turn around and throw the same money back at the government.
They aren't "developing" these H1B candidates either, and yet they are available... I don't really have any problem with employers not training people - we don't typically obligate people to stay on like they do in other countries (through a bond, for instance), so it's hard to fault them.
My comment was more directed towards whether we are really getting smart, educated people that we would be crazy to turn away, or ordinary people who have simply had a training course.
Student loans are a disaster and, while a separate issue, I have no problem discussing. them.
Personally, I feel that we should extend compulsory education two more years and make it an Associates degree. We could do this by extending the community college programs we already have, and they could be funded at the federal or state level to avoid the problems we have with uneven funding of primary and secondary education. Once everyone is getting an associates degree or technical training for "free", we could dramatically scale back our Stafford Loan programs. Even if we left the Stafford Loan program as-is, debt would be cut in half for most takers. I think that a high-school degree is no longer sufficient to prepare most people for the working world - and not because the high school degree has become "devalued", but because we have become more productive and our jobs more complex.
Colleges have gotten completely out of control. My wife went to one of the best liberal arts schools on the planet, almost 30 years ago. It's still one of the best and it serves just as many students - but it now has twice as many buildings. Has the education value doubled? I think not. What happened is the cost of education grew by approximately the amount of a Stafford Loan, because the money is "free". We tried to do a good thing, and instead inflated the cost of college for everyone.
This is why the Mac ain't going anywhere. Apple pulls in more profit on their pitiful 5 million PCs than HP, Lenovo, Dell, Acer and Asus make on their combined 53 million PCs. 5% marketshare, 45% of the profits... that's why I'm a stockholder :)
Have you noticed a shortage of multinationals?
Not at all, but I'm giving some credit to the H1B program. Incidentally, I think most of the credit goes to our excellent university system and liberal education visas. Historically, we have gotten far more rich, educated people to stay here than our population warrants.
RTFA. We already graduate far more STEM people than are employed. We have a shortage of demand, not supply.
Two points: (a) we are in a recession, and (b) Most (many?) STEM graduates end up in non-stem roles such as management or running a business.
One thing that probably should be examined is the types of workers that are granted H1Bs. I'm not sure a Cisco certified what-ever needs to be an H1B. You can take someone fresh out of trade school and get them their certification - I find it a bit hard to believe that there is a true "shortage". Someone with a molecular biology PhD... you'd be crazy not to let them stay in your country.
Magically proclaiming that government is inherently a flawed way to accomplish anything, bordering on the criminal and immoral? That is a fantastical proposition.
While there are certainly short-term successes, I think an observation of history shows that government gravitates toward the corrupt. There always seems to be a ruling class, and they always, eventually, manage to manipulate government to enrich themselves.
I'm not in IT, I'm a mechanical engineer. My company has tried to move our engineering center overseas several times, and has never been successful. They tried to move things to Singapore, but it's a tiny island with a finite labor pool. We found some great engineers, but not enough to do the job - and the turnover is terrible. The same thing happened in China. Big country. Still, a very finite supply of engineers... many of the good engineers go overseas. Turnover is also terrible. The result is they grudgingly stay in the US. I would say that 1/3 or so of the engineers here came on H1B. I'm not sure we'd be as competitive without those engineers.
I don't know if it is possible to do Cisco support from Asia, but if it is those people might have been doomed one way or another.
The whole POINT is to let in talented people who are more attractive than a college grad. Having such a pool of people _inside the US_ is a huge competitive advantage over countries with strict immigration. What in the world keeps American engineering salaries so high if not available talent pool?
That's only true until they get their green card.
The 75-year thing is mostly a political invention. They are required to:
(a) Fund their current retirees' health care and pensions.
(b) Fund their current employees' health care and pensions.
However, since they were almost completely unfunded before, add that together and you have a 75-year hole to climb out of.
Morally right would be pre-funding the pensions for a saner length of time and then allowing the USPS to raise rates to compensate.
I agree that rates should have gone up. Not funding at 100% I cannot endorse, but I would have been happier to see a 50% funding as a compromise than nothing at all.
Exactly, as a stockholder I only care about marketshare when it starts to drop to a point that become a problem maintaining the ecosystem. The margins are my main concern. If I ever look at marketshare, I want to see "profitshare".
Now that article that I linked disagrees with me. It argues that Apple might eventually lose the smartphone battle as cheap phones become "good enough". I'd argue two things: (a) Apple can still participate in the market with a high-margin cheaper phone. (b) Apple can abandon the market if it becomes unprofitable. They weren't a smart phone maker 7 years ago. They didn't make a (modern) tablet until 3 years ago. They weren't an MP3 maker for a very long time. I believe they are agile enough to use new technology to expand into new markets as the opportunity arises. If they were a one-trick pony I wouldn't be a stockholder. They are now a 3-trick pony :)
Supply and demand is Econ 101, everyone knows that curve. But economics is more complicated than supply and demand.
Have you ever noticed that car dealerships tend to be located close to one another? The idea is that having a huge market of cars will bring in far more customers than putting a single dealership in an isolated place. So even though supply goes up, demand goes up even more and the dealers make more money. My contention is that having the US flush with technical talent keeps companies in the US. What possible reason would your company set up shop in the US if there wasn't a better-than-average talent pool? The salaries are far higher here than in China or India.
Well, that is almost certainly true! :)
Unfortunately (or fortunately) the entire US follows a single immigration policy. There is nothing stopping an H1B worker from moving to another state.