H-1B draft with proposed changes [pdf](lofgren.house.gov) |
H-1B draft with proposed changes [pdf](lofgren.house.gov) |
That's what matters if you're an Indian with an I-140 dated 2009, afraid to change his H1B job, despite salary or personnel issues. (Also, ask me about why I'm not starting up).
That one section prevents this "you can quit anytime you feel like" threat held over Indian employees by employers, because an I-140 for the employee is issued to the employer.
An employee with mobility between employers is no longer forcing the wages down.
That does not prevent a company from sending the same job to India, because it suddenly costs so much, but it does prevent the lowering of wages due to people putting up with abusive or near-illegal employment practices.
This is good for the local economy and basically makes an "outsourcing" employee irresponsible if she doesn't jump to an american firm who will do her paperwork right.
Raising the salaries all around.
(delete mini-rant about living expenses and salaries - increased pay all around isn't always what it's cracked up to be)
That section alone, shifts the balance of power between an employer and an H1b holder.
If the H1B program were abolished entirely, my compensation would shoot up there with doctors' and lawyers', and the tech billionaires would be slightly less rich.
This measure doesn't go that far, but it's a step in that direction.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703509104576328... (Infosys China Plans to Triple Staff to 10,000)
It's harder to outsource doctors because of multitude of reasons (Healthcare is country dependent, patients can't be transported, medicines are different in each country)
I am on H1b and I have noticed the body shops too, even worked for one. Bills like this doesn't address the core issue of H1b abuse and only exacerbates the issues.
There are a lot of people on this thread who don't understand how the law of supply and demand works.
---
While TCS, Infosys etc figure prominently in the H-1B debate, I think this new bill does not affect them as much as it is made out to be. The real downside is for staffing firms (popularly known as "desi consulting shops"), mostly run by Indian-Americans.
TCS employs 370K+ employees worldwide and had revenue of $16B+ in 2016. They might have gotten 3K H-1Bs each year. If they know how to run projects staffing 370K employees with 3K H-1Bs per year, they will figure out a way to run it with 500. Also, with that kind of revenue, they will pay the $130K if it comes to that.
H-1Bs, I suspect, have a power law distribution. TCS, Infosys etc top the list of H-1B visas per year, but there is a long tail of companies which get allotted few visas every year. Some of these in the long tail are high tech firms in real need of skill and are the ones paying appropriately for it (AmaFaceGoodSoft etc). But I think the larger cohort are the staffing shops which bend the rules often and pay low.
---
Curious to see how this bill would prevent the major outsources from forming a load of subsidiaries and gaming the system anyway. Maybe it's more of a bill for show, than to actually solve anything.
Also, for those jobs with lower income potential, the question still stands - can the employers find enough US citizens to take on those jobs (and do them well), given the the low salary.
Does this mean that a company can pay below the 130k if it can prove that it's not possible to hire an American even with higher wages?
Sets aside 20% of the annual allocation of H-1B visas for small and start-up employers
If you are in Zoe Lofgren's district, please send her comments here: https://lofgren.house.gov/contact/
To answer your question, I don't have trouble finding or keeping employment. This move will simply drive up my market value. So I'm for it.
Assumption, demand is constant: I'm talking about demand in the economic sense, i.e. The demand curve. The demand curve is left unchanged by this bill. i.e. We still need the same number of software developers, and for any $X/person companies are willing to hire Y number of people.
Assumption, Price Elasticity: For the most part this assumption holds because, fortunately, software companies do seem to be making profits. Implying, they have the means to increase wages.
All in all, this is in the best interest of any person in a profession where many H1-Bs currently hold a position, and whose company is currently profitable.
Everything mostly follows the path of least resistance. Economy, finance, etc. The actual law of the land is and will always be: profit.
H-1B was a viable way to make profit, so it became popular. Once it is not longer profitable, people will look for something else.
Will the new way be hiring American workers? maybe... Maybe it will be hiring from coding camps for less, maybe it is moving to another country, or almost anything.
It doesn't necessarily have to be hiring Americans computer science graduates. Someone will find the way and everyone will follow.
whaaaat?
What greedy, heartless, unpatriotic company do you work for? I'm sure a massive name-and-shame campaign against them will convince them to restore those 4 jobs.
And perhaps the Republicans could explore the possibility of imposing surcharges on fees paid to offshore development shops, to encourage a more "America First" mindset in greedy companies who lay off American workers and offshore the work.
This is a huge problem by itself. H-4 EAD after I-140 is not enough because that forces you to stay with your current employer until you get your I-140. If you are going to restrict H-1B to highly skilled immigrants, then H-4 EAD should be eligible for any H-1B holder's spouse regardless of I-140 status. Otherwise you are basically saying "we only welcome highly skilled immigrants that are single"
Just the kind that almost every American works for and little better than the owned by out President. If you know any unselfish, living, patriotic company that is also profitable that pays well please refer me I will join there!
> Republicans could explore the possibility of imposing surcharges on fees paid to offshore development shops, to encourage a more "America First" mindset in greedy companies who lay off American workers and offshore the work.
We think that as a real possibility and intend to bypass it too.
I know you have been sarcastic.
No, I'm quite serious. I've had a bellyful of being lectured by boy billionaires. Anything that helps me and hurts them, I'm all for.
Globally, sure, but the global supply of labor in any field isn't changed, only the US supply. In many cases, H-1B work isn't extremely location-sensitive, and foreign suppliers are acceptable substitutes to local suppliers.
To the extent this is true in any field, the effect of restricting visa supply is to offshore more work.
That is because I disagree with: "In many cases, H-1B work isn't extremely location-sensitive, and foreign suppliers are acceptable substitutes to local suppliers"
For an H-1B, US companies go out of their way to recruit remote talent, pay legal fees, take on risk, to get a talented worker to come work in the US.
For a significantly reduced cost to employer, they could have recruited that same worker in their country of origin, and pay them for working in their country of origin.
If H-1B work is location in-sensitive as you suggest, why do for-profit companies, take on additional costs, risks, and pay higher wages for the same talent?
See: http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/29/mitra-india-outsourcing-tec...
The wages for IT workers rose insanely in India. In places like Salt Lake (where IBM, CTS and other bigwigs are established) they drove the real estate prices by more than 10x in few years.
The decline started few years back when the cost to outsource was nearly equal to paying an H1b person or hiring a local.
Most tech companies including Apple & Google hardly pay any tax, would you really expect them to pay artificial rates for labor?
The simple economics you are quoting will argue against protectionism. Even hypothetically assuming it will increase wages it will in turn make it costly to innovate and increase the cost of services for average American consumer.
If Citibank charges $25 monthly fee they might have to charge $30 to make the same money. That generally hurts American consumer just the way American protectionism towards Steel and Sugar industry hurts American consumers while benefiting special interest groups.
For those of us who have taken Econ 101 can tell you that this is even worse for resources such as human mind. The marginal impact on salaries with every additional H1B US taken in next to 0 simply because Job at higher end are not zero sum game. Each extra person helps grow the pie significantly this increasing the salaries even further.
For low value jobs such as a gardener, a cheaper labor will replace the expensive one because having two gardeners does not increase the productivity of the employer by 2X. But for high-end jobs such as say a Doctor, having many doctors would mean more drugs, faster solution to diabetes and cancer.
You're quite right, of course, and until about a week ago, I would have opposed this change to the law on that basis. But I've had a bellyful of being lectured and name-called by self-righteous billionaires. So now whatever hurts them and helps me, I'm all for.
And although protectionism does hurt a country overall, it helps individuals and companies that are protected from competition. And for this change to the H1B law, I fall into that group. So bring on the protectionism, I say.
The reality though is that H-1B has been so completely abused over the past decade to the point that wages for skilled Americans have suffered a serious pushdown effect.
It's not the fault of the workers, and if this goes through we're sad that folks will feel some pain, but it's about time this gets patched up.
I'm very unsure about this, but thinking maybe I should hurry and buy a house if this passes.
The supply is artificially set by law. The fact that they will cost $130K instead of whatever it was before will make it much easier for me to compete with them.
It might also make it economically feasible for US companies to hire US workers who might not have all of the needed skills, and train them. That works for me.
Why would it make a qualified American developer less attractive to Google?