A couple of pro-H1B articles by Americans
-
Oakman wrote:
What do you think I'm doing here - besides p!ss!ng a bunch of people off?
who you! what are you talking about - you are the very essence of sweetness and reasonableness , perhaps you are a bit shy though !:laugh: Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
MartyK2007 wrote:
you are the very essence of sweetness and reasonableness
Yep, me, Martin Luther, Galileo Galilei, and the kid who kept saying the Emperor had no clothes. All gentle souls with no agenda. ;) Oh well, I work for myself so there's no fear of my boss replacing me or moving the operations center to the polluted shores of the Ganges, either.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
jschell wrote:
Requiring that they be paid two to three times the going rate would certainly remove any incentive for low balling.
It certainly would but then companies wouldnt do it. They would probably live with training the staff and waiting for the staff to gain th experiance. That would slow down product development and possible "weaken" the company because its not producing fast enough - Yep there are alot of assumptions in that. Why not go for parity in salary , then the disincentive can be the additional costs in finding a H1b person. Also , I think we all would want 100% emploment of our own countries population first but sometimes importing foreign grown talent can expose the home talent to different ways of doing things which may be beneficial. Of course the converse is true too. but in essence I would agree with you if the problem is that H1bs people are used as cheap labour. Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
MartyK2007 wrote:
Why not go for parity in salary , then the disincentive can be the additional costs in finding a H1b person.
Theoretically, parity is supposed to be maintained now. But the rules are so badly enforced that many companies no longer claim to be paying the going rate on their H1B Visa applications.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
It certainly would but then companies wouldnt do it. They would probably live with training the staff and waiting for the staff to gain th experiance. That would slow down product development and possible "weaken" the company because its not producing fast enough - Yep there are alot of assumptions in that.
And running out of H1B visa doesn't slow that down?
MartyK2007 wrote:
Why not go for parity in salary , then the disincentive can be the additional costs in finding a H1b person
Many reasons. - Parity makes it much easier to cheat. - Companies have much more incentive to look else where (in the same country) for the talent that they need. - Companies have much more incentive to be creative in how they look for talent. - Companies have more incentive to evaluate in depth what they really need. - If they really need that specific talent and will not accept any alternatives then why wouldn't they be willing to pay for it?
jschell wrote:
And running out of H1B visa doesn't slow that down?
yeah but its a quota system - if they were too few then the US government could allocate more.
jschell wrote:
- Parity makes it much easier to cheat.
How ??? the job is 75K no matter the source of the programmer - how can you cheat that?
jschell wrote:
- Companies have much more incentive to look else where (in the same country) for the talent that they need.
which is what the anti H1bs want ( and in all fairness is what it should be)
jschell wrote:
- Companies have much more incentive to be creative in how they look for talent. - Companies have more incentive to evaluate in depth what they really need.
agreed
jschell wrote:
- If they really need that specific talent and will not accept any alternatives then why wouldn't they be willing to pay for it?
because they probably wouldnt - as bean counters have a lot to say in a company - so they go for a cheaper US alternative (great it gives the US guy a job!) but they dont get what they need and have to wait the for US guy to get "up to speed" , hence slowing down there productivity which is "bad" for the economy. I think the last stsement is the main reason I would advocate salary parity - forget fairness in the corporate line. Parity would help their bottom line. The side effect would be a use of H1bs as they were intended to be. Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
you are the very essence of sweetness and reasonableness
Yep, me, Martin Luther, Galileo Galilei, and the kid who kept saying the Emperor had no clothes. All gentle souls with no agenda. ;) Oh well, I work for myself so there's no fear of my boss replacing me or moving the operations center to the polluted shores of the Ganges, either.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
no fear of my boss
depends if your married :laugh:
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
Why not go for parity in salary , then the disincentive can be the additional costs in finding a H1b person.
Theoretically, parity is supposed to be maintained now. But the rules are so badly enforced that many companies no longer claim to be paying the going rate on their H1B Visa applications.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue. maybe the anti H1bs should be lobbying for correct enforcement instead - but hey what do I know I'm a foreigner Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
jschell wrote:
And running out of H1B visa doesn't slow that down?
yeah but its a quota system - if they were too few then the US government could allocate more.
jschell wrote:
- Parity makes it much easier to cheat.
How ??? the job is 75K no matter the source of the programmer - how can you cheat that?
jschell wrote:
- Companies have much more incentive to look else where (in the same country) for the talent that they need.
which is what the anti H1bs want ( and in all fairness is what it should be)
jschell wrote:
- Companies have much more incentive to be creative in how they look for talent. - Companies have more incentive to evaluate in depth what they really need.
agreed
jschell wrote:
- If they really need that specific talent and will not accept any alternatives then why wouldn't they be willing to pay for it?
because they probably wouldnt - as bean counters have a lot to say in a company - so they go for a cheaper US alternative (great it gives the US guy a job!) but they dont get what they need and have to wait the for US guy to get "up to speed" , hence slowing down there productivity which is "bad" for the economy. I think the last stsement is the main reason I would advocate salary parity - forget fairness in the corporate line. Parity would help their bottom line. The side effect would be a use of H1bs as they were intended to be. Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
MartyK2007 wrote:
yeah but its a quota system - if they were too few then the US government could allocate more.
Not the point. Right now they are out of them. So which of the following are companies, right now, doing? 1. Cancelling the project immediately 2. Looking for alternative solutions, failing and then cancelling 3. Looking for alternative solutions, succeeding and then go forward If they are doing 1 then how can the project actually be strategically important to the company?
MartyK2007 wrote:
How ??? the job is 75K no matter the source of the programmer - how can you cheat that?
Because the fact that I advertise for a DBA for salary X doesn't mean that I am not going to hire a Senior DBA (who should get salary Y) because I can. Making it three times above parity ensures that possibility is no longer economical.
MartyK2007 wrote:
because they probably wouldnt - as bean counters have a lot to say in a company - so they go for a cheaper US alternative (great it gives the US guy a job!) but they dont get what they need and have to wait the for US guy to get "up to speed" , hence slowing down there productivity which is "bad" for the economy.
That however is not the only alternative. And somewhat simplified even if it were the case. First in the US there probably is someone with the skill set. Offering a higher salary, relocation, etc would make those candidates more willing to accept the job. Secondly, no one lands running the first day anyways. Any sufficiently complex endevour that really requires specialized skills is often going to require weeks, if not more, to come up to speed. And paying for training for someone within the company, who already knows the business, offsets that. As for the "bean counters" again making the salary three times parity would certainly fix that.
MartyK2007 wrote:
Parity would help their bottom line.
If a project is strategically important to the company then they must pay for it, by definition. If it isn't then it doesn't matter if it is delayed or cancelled.
-
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue. maybe the anti H1bs should be lobbying for correct enforcement instead - but hey what do I know I'm a foreigner Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
MartyK2007 wrote:
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue. maybe the anti H1bs should be lobbying for correct enforcement instead - but hey what do I know I'm a foreigner
Which works in an idealized world. In the real world complexity issues and economic issues are unlikely to make that viable.
-
Oakman wrote:
no fear of my boss
depends if your married :laugh:
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue. maybe the anti H1bs should be lobbying for correct enforcement instead - but hey what do I know I'm a foreigner Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
MartyK2007 wrote:
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue.
I wish it were half that simple. But with a President who thinks he's above any and all laws, a Congress that considers an ethical politician to be one that stays bought, and an industry where far too many twits have convinced themselves that as long as they have a job, it doesn't matter how many others are put out of work; I despair of there being a solution that could allow me to recommend programming as a profession to anyone in their teens and who spoke English as a first language. The law is fundamentally flawed and was deliberately written that way. The enabling legislation says that the Labor Dept can only investigate any putative case of H1B fraud with the written permission of the Secretary of Labor. How many times do you think any incumbent would publically authorize an investigation of a corporation that has assuredly made large contributions to the party, because some techie gets fired? The H1B problem will be solved, I fear when ten million more IT jobs are shipped overseas. (That's the number presently being forecast by Princeton University and "Foreign Affairs.")Perhaps then, the U.S. will wake up (especially the guys who are sure it could never happen to them) but what is done is hard to undo, n'es-ce pas? Alternately, Pakistan will get pissed off enough at India that Microsoft and Oracle will discover that their brand new campuses glow in the dark. (And the retaliation might take care of Bin Laden.)
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue.
I wish it were half that simple. But with a President who thinks he's above any and all laws, a Congress that considers an ethical politician to be one that stays bought, and an industry where far too many twits have convinced themselves that as long as they have a job, it doesn't matter how many others are put out of work; I despair of there being a solution that could allow me to recommend programming as a profession to anyone in their teens and who spoke English as a first language. The law is fundamentally flawed and was deliberately written that way. The enabling legislation says that the Labor Dept can only investigate any putative case of H1B fraud with the written permission of the Secretary of Labor. How many times do you think any incumbent would publically authorize an investigation of a corporation that has assuredly made large contributions to the party, because some techie gets fired? The H1B problem will be solved, I fear when ten million more IT jobs are shipped overseas. (That's the number presently being forecast by Princeton University and "Foreign Affairs.")Perhaps then, the U.S. will wake up (especially the guys who are sure it could never happen to them) but what is done is hard to undo, n'es-ce pas? Alternately, Pakistan will get pissed off enough at India that Microsoft and Oracle will discover that their brand new campuses glow in the dark. (And the retaliation might take care of Bin Laden.)
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
The H1B problem will be solved, I fear when ten million more IT jobs are shipped overseas. (That's the number presently being forecast by Princeton University and "Foreign Affairs.")Perhaps then, the U.S. will wake up (especially the guys who are sure it could never happen to them) but what is done is hard to undo, n'es-ce pas?
Googling doesn't find an particular reference that would support that at all. The only Princeton study I found referenced suggests that a number of US jobs (not just IT) are vulnerable to outsourcing. It doesn't predict that they will be but merely that they could be. Not to mention that this is a long term view by an economist. And if you want to bet your future on any long term view from any economist than have fun. Myself I would rather spend my $25 on a tarot reading since at least that is entertaining.
-
Oakman wrote:
The H1B problem will be solved, I fear when ten million more IT jobs are shipped overseas. (That's the number presently being forecast by Princeton University and "Foreign Affairs.")Perhaps then, the U.S. will wake up (especially the guys who are sure it could never happen to them) but what is done is hard to undo, n'es-ce pas?
Googling doesn't find an particular reference that would support that at all. The only Princeton study I found referenced suggests that a number of US jobs (not just IT) are vulnerable to outsourcing. It doesn't predict that they will be but merely that they could be. Not to mention that this is a long term view by an economist. And if you want to bet your future on any long term view from any economist than have fun. Myself I would rather spend my $25 on a tarot reading since at least that is entertaining.
This may've turned up in your google results but if it didn't: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85209-p0/alan-s-blinder/offshoring-the-next-industrial-revolution.html[^] Blinder is basically a pro-globalization guy (as, of course, is "Foreign Affairs") and it is the fact that he comes up with these numbers that is so worrisome. Had it been someone whose mindset was closer to mine, the numbers might bear extra scrutiny. I basically agree that economists are witch doctors but when one of the admits, even a little bit, that the mumbo jumbo he's been muttering around the campfire might not have described reality as well as he had been hoping, its worth thinking about what he says. Here's a couple of quotes from the article: "The economists Jagdish Bhagwati, Arvind Panagariya, and T. N. Srinivasan meant to reassure Americans when they wrote, "Adding 300 million to the pool of skilled workers in India and China will take some decades." They were probably right. But decades is precisely the time frame that people should be thinking about -- and 300 million people is roughly twice the size of the U.S. work force." "The overall picture defies generalization, but a rough estimate, based on the preceding numbers, is that the total number of current U.S. service-sector jobs that will be susceptible to offshoring in the electronic future is two to three times the total number of current manufacturing jobs (which is about 14 million)." To tell the truth, I may have remembered the ten million figure from a Lou Dobbs broadcast but ten million from IT (including Financial IT) out of 42 million doesn't seem hard to believe.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
yeah but its a quota system - if they were too few then the US government could allocate more.
Not the point. Right now they are out of them. So which of the following are companies, right now, doing? 1. Cancelling the project immediately 2. Looking for alternative solutions, failing and then cancelling 3. Looking for alternative solutions, succeeding and then go forward If they are doing 1 then how can the project actually be strategically important to the company?
MartyK2007 wrote:
How ??? the job is 75K no matter the source of the programmer - how can you cheat that?
Because the fact that I advertise for a DBA for salary X doesn't mean that I am not going to hire a Senior DBA (who should get salary Y) because I can. Making it three times above parity ensures that possibility is no longer economical.
MartyK2007 wrote:
because they probably wouldnt - as bean counters have a lot to say in a company - so they go for a cheaper US alternative (great it gives the US guy a job!) but they dont get what they need and have to wait the for US guy to get "up to speed" , hence slowing down there productivity which is "bad" for the economy.
That however is not the only alternative. And somewhat simplified even if it were the case. First in the US there probably is someone with the skill set. Offering a higher salary, relocation, etc would make those candidates more willing to accept the job. Secondly, no one lands running the first day anyways. Any sufficiently complex endevour that really requires specialized skills is often going to require weeks, if not more, to come up to speed. And paying for training for someone within the company, who already knows the business, offsets that. As for the "bean counters" again making the salary three times parity would certainly fix that.
MartyK2007 wrote:
Parity would help their bottom line.
If a project is strategically important to the company then they must pay for it, by definition. If it isn't then it doesn't matter if it is delayed or cancelled.
jschell wrote:
Not the point.
no I think that is the point. The government should be able to craete more quickly if it needs too. After all its a nebulous quota in certain ways - they just say ok we'll let another 50 in this week and use existing processes. Its up to industry to help them get the most accurate estimate of the numbers.
jschell wrote:
If they are doing 1
correct if 1 then they shouldnt be in the H1 game at all.
jschell wrote:
Because the fact that I advertise for a DBA for salary X doesn't mean that I am not going to hire a Senior DBA
absolutly and good for you if you can but what I am saying is that salary X at least has to be offered for the role of DBA no matter where they come from . if a senior dba wants to work for X then thats their problem not yours.
jschell wrote:
somewhat simplified
probably but no less valid because of it.
jschell wrote:
would make those candidates more willing to accept the job
of course it would but there are times when even that is not enough. There comes a point when the money the company adds to gets these people makes the whole thing unviable (i.e. you want 10 people you pay them all X*2 to get them in the door) its not worth it you retrain the US guys willing to work for near X and give them a years "scutt" work until they get up to speed or you accept the fact the overall project will take longer and start them off on it straight away. because of there inexperiance they may do it the least effective way (or the wrong way) Now rather that suffer that wouldnt it be better to recruit 8 local people at X then train them and to get 2 H1bs at X as their technical leaders?? The loss of productivity will be minimised I think. There are plenty of alternatives like this. Its a comprimise between maximising prodcutivty(and profit) against a good software solution.
jschell wrote:
Secondly, no one lands running the first day anyways.
absolutly but what is easier : to take instruction from a BA whose is experianced with the business and knows what the users want to do with the specialization or to retrain an existing programmer in a whole specioalization. I would suggest the former.
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue. maybe the anti H1bs should be lobbying for correct enforcement instead - but hey what do I know I'm a foreigner
Which works in an idealized world. In the real world complexity issues and economic issues are unlikely to make that viable.
jschell wrote:
In the real world complexity issues and economic issues are unlikely to make that viable
I disagree , just because we dont have the correct formula in place yet (or political will perhaps), doesnt mean we cant do it properly. It could be detected via the tax returns of the employees of a company for example.
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
I was married once upon a time. It's definitely a learning experience -- character-building, too. But I graduated. :laugh:
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
enjoy your postgrad studies then :laugh:
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
There you go, its not the law its the enforcement of the law thats the issue.
I wish it were half that simple. But with a President who thinks he's above any and all laws, a Congress that considers an ethical politician to be one that stays bought, and an industry where far too many twits have convinced themselves that as long as they have a job, it doesn't matter how many others are put out of work; I despair of there being a solution that could allow me to recommend programming as a profession to anyone in their teens and who spoke English as a first language. The law is fundamentally flawed and was deliberately written that way. The enabling legislation says that the Labor Dept can only investigate any putative case of H1B fraud with the written permission of the Secretary of Labor. How many times do you think any incumbent would publically authorize an investigation of a corporation that has assuredly made large contributions to the party, because some techie gets fired? The H1B problem will be solved, I fear when ten million more IT jobs are shipped overseas. (That's the number presently being forecast by Princeton University and "Foreign Affairs.")Perhaps then, the U.S. will wake up (especially the guys who are sure it could never happen to them) but what is done is hard to undo, n'es-ce pas? Alternately, Pakistan will get pissed off enough at India that Microsoft and Oracle will discover that their brand new campuses glow in the dark. (And the retaliation might take care of Bin Laden.)
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
Oakman wrote:
I wish it were half that simple.
hey I understand , trying to get UK politions to listen to the people is a "challenge" at the best of times. Like for instance capital punishment - the UK public is very in favour of the , Parliment isnt - so we dont get it. Hey we cant even smack kids , thanks to the uk government. But what do think you are more likely to acheive - proper law enforecment (detection via the tax system perhaps) or a total banning of H1bs. I dont know - its your political system , you would know better. good luck Martin
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
jschell wrote:
Not the point.
no I think that is the point. The government should be able to craete more quickly if it needs too. After all its a nebulous quota in certain ways - they just say ok we'll let another 50 in this week and use existing processes. Its up to industry to help them get the most accurate estimate of the numbers.
jschell wrote:
If they are doing 1
correct if 1 then they shouldnt be in the H1 game at all.
jschell wrote:
Because the fact that I advertise for a DBA for salary X doesn't mean that I am not going to hire a Senior DBA
absolutly and good for you if you can but what I am saying is that salary X at least has to be offered for the role of DBA no matter where they come from . if a senior dba wants to work for X then thats their problem not yours.
jschell wrote:
somewhat simplified
probably but no less valid because of it.
jschell wrote:
would make those candidates more willing to accept the job
of course it would but there are times when even that is not enough. There comes a point when the money the company adds to gets these people makes the whole thing unviable (i.e. you want 10 people you pay them all X*2 to get them in the door) its not worth it you retrain the US guys willing to work for near X and give them a years "scutt" work until they get up to speed or you accept the fact the overall project will take longer and start them off on it straight away. because of there inexperiance they may do it the least effective way (or the wrong way) Now rather that suffer that wouldnt it be better to recruit 8 local people at X then train them and to get 2 H1bs at X as their technical leaders?? The loss of productivity will be minimised I think. There are plenty of alternatives like this. Its a comprimise between maximising prodcutivty(and profit) against a good software solution.
jschell wrote:
Secondly, no one lands running the first day anyways.
absolutly but what is easier : to take instruction from a BA whose is experianced with the business and knows what the users want to do with the specialization or to retrain an existing programmer in a whole specioalization. I would suggest the former.
MartyK2007 wrote:
The government should be able to craete more quickly if it needs too.
But my point is where does the "need" originate? A strategic project, by definition, requires that the company pay for it. Regardless of the cost. Otherwise they can defer it.
MartyK2007 wrote:
absolutly and good for you if you can but what I am saying is that salary X at least has to be offered for the role of DBA no matter where they come from . if a senior dba wants to work for X then thats their problem not yours.
Except that companies will price it at the DBA level even though they know they are going to be hiring at the Senior DBA level.
MartyK2007 wrote:
of course it would but there are times when even that is not enough. There comes a point when the money the company adds to gets these people makes the whole thing unviable...
Except that is extremely simplistic. If a company needs a project then they need to spend the money. And if they need it then they need the people. If they pay enough then they WILL find the people because people will leave other jobs to do it. So the problem is not that the people do not exist but that the company is not willing to pay for it. And that is the problem. If the project is that important to the company then why are they not willing to pay for it? If it isn't that important then why are they not willing to wait?
MartyK2007 wrote:
absolutly but what is easier : to take instruction from a BA whose is experianced with the business and knows what the users want to do with the specialization or to retrain an existing programmer in a whole specioalization. I would suggest the former.
I would suggest that you must have a different experience with companies than I do. Most companies don't have business analysts at all. And those that do are often overworked and/or do not have enough experience to actually understand the business. And very seldom do you find ones that understand it enough much less are able to convey that immediately to some one new. And we are not talking about hiring someone with no experience at all, but rather someone who has less or different experience than desired.
MartyK2007 wrote:
This 3 times figure , is that because you just dont want H1bs
-
jschell wrote:
Not the point.
no I think that is the point. The government should be able to craete more quickly if it needs too. After all its a nebulous quota in certain ways - they just say ok we'll let another 50 in this week and use existing processes. Its up to industry to help them get the most accurate estimate of the numbers.
jschell wrote:
If they are doing 1
correct if 1 then they shouldnt be in the H1 game at all.
jschell wrote:
Because the fact that I advertise for a DBA for salary X doesn't mean that I am not going to hire a Senior DBA
absolutly and good for you if you can but what I am saying is that salary X at least has to be offered for the role of DBA no matter where they come from . if a senior dba wants to work for X then thats their problem not yours.
jschell wrote:
somewhat simplified
probably but no less valid because of it.
jschell wrote:
would make those candidates more willing to accept the job
of course it would but there are times when even that is not enough. There comes a point when the money the company adds to gets these people makes the whole thing unviable (i.e. you want 10 people you pay them all X*2 to get them in the door) its not worth it you retrain the US guys willing to work for near X and give them a years "scutt" work until they get up to speed or you accept the fact the overall project will take longer and start them off on it straight away. because of there inexperiance they may do it the least effective way (or the wrong way) Now rather that suffer that wouldnt it be better to recruit 8 local people at X then train them and to get 2 H1bs at X as their technical leaders?? The loss of productivity will be minimised I think. There are plenty of alternatives like this. Its a comprimise between maximising prodcutivty(and profit) against a good software solution.
jschell wrote:
Secondly, no one lands running the first day anyways.
absolutly but what is easier : to take instruction from a BA whose is experianced with the business and knows what the users want to do with the specialization or to retrain an existing programmer in a whole specioalization. I would suggest the former.
MartyK2007 wrote:
Now rather that suffer that wouldnt it be better to recruit 8 local people at X then train them and to get 2 H1bs at X as their technical leaders?? The loss of productivity will be minimised I think. There are plenty of alternatives like this. Its a comprimise between maximising prodcutivty(and profit) against a good software solution.
And another article that seems to point out that this is not in fact what is happening. http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000479[^] Note that the actual cap is not 65k, but rather as high as 112k. And also note that companies are not in fact required to at least attempt to find local talent. Also the argument that if there was a real and substantial shortage then salaries should be going up - even if you want to limit that to the talented ones.
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
The government should be able to craete more quickly if it needs too.
But my point is where does the "need" originate? A strategic project, by definition, requires that the company pay for it. Regardless of the cost. Otherwise they can defer it.
MartyK2007 wrote:
absolutly and good for you if you can but what I am saying is that salary X at least has to be offered for the role of DBA no matter where they come from . if a senior dba wants to work for X then thats their problem not yours.
Except that companies will price it at the DBA level even though they know they are going to be hiring at the Senior DBA level.
MartyK2007 wrote:
of course it would but there are times when even that is not enough. There comes a point when the money the company adds to gets these people makes the whole thing unviable...
Except that is extremely simplistic. If a company needs a project then they need to spend the money. And if they need it then they need the people. If they pay enough then they WILL find the people because people will leave other jobs to do it. So the problem is not that the people do not exist but that the company is not willing to pay for it. And that is the problem. If the project is that important to the company then why are they not willing to pay for it? If it isn't that important then why are they not willing to wait?
MartyK2007 wrote:
absolutly but what is easier : to take instruction from a BA whose is experianced with the business and knows what the users want to do with the specialization or to retrain an existing programmer in a whole specioalization. I would suggest the former.
I would suggest that you must have a different experience with companies than I do. Most companies don't have business analysts at all. And those that do are often overworked and/or do not have enough experience to actually understand the business. And very seldom do you find ones that understand it enough much less are able to convey that immediately to some one new. And we are not talking about hiring someone with no experience at all, but rather someone who has less or different experience than desired.
MartyK2007 wrote:
This 3 times figure , is that because you just dont want H1bs
jschell wrote:
But my point is where does the "need" originate?
The business requirement for quicker profit aqnd a healthier economy. One facet of which is screw the employee for the cheapest rate and another facet is getting their product to market as quickly as possible for the most money. The supporting the product in a cost effective means. Also there is the strategic survival need , which superceeds cost - ie you have to change to stay in business in a certain time frame(maybe because of a change in the law) irrespective of cost.
jschell wrote:
Otherwise they can defer it
but why should they have to, if they have to pay X and its a toss up between a 6 month intro for a US Guy as against a 1 month intro for a H1b and by finishing 5 mnonths early (everything else being equal - I know I know big assumption) they make 5 months worth of profits and pay tax on those profits then why shouldnt they.
jschell wrote:
it at the DBA level
and if its for a DBA role (not a senior DBA role) then whats wrong with that. perhaps the senior DBA is being stupid for going down but thats there call.
jschell wrote:
If a company needs a project then they need to spend the money
Yes in certain circumstances for some projects. But another case would be if a company needs a project in a years time but wants to prototype it now , they may well hire US people for the main project and H1b's to prototype and prepare them for a technical leadership role in the main project. In this case they cant find the US People quick enough so why should they have to pay lots if extra cash for the H1b. we can probably spend ages trying to find examples in company projects that support both our sides but in the end I think it boils down to why a company should be forced to pay extra for a role to be filled from abroad. You seem to suggest if they do it will make them reconsider employing US citizens instead . This is like protectionism. If so I agree its always good to get your existing local talent working first. But sometimes you just cant and I cannot see the justification for making your companies (and indirectly your economy) suffer in this way when you have another mechanism for restricting H1bs and that is by using the quota.
jschell wrote
-
MartyK2007 wrote:
Now rather that suffer that wouldnt it be better to recruit 8 local people at X then train them and to get 2 H1bs at X as their technical leaders?? The loss of productivity will be minimised I think. There are plenty of alternatives like this. Its a comprimise between maximising prodcutivty(and profit) against a good software solution.
And another article that seems to point out that this is not in fact what is happening. http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000479[^] Note that the actual cap is not 65k, but rather as high as 112k. And also note that companies are not in fact required to at least attempt to find local talent. Also the argument that if there was a real and substantial shortage then salaries should be going up - even if you want to limit that to the talented ones.
sorry it just goes to my point again. H1bs as a concept are GOOD! execution and enforment of H1bs are BAD!! and in summary I would like to say UG!!;)
life is a bowl of cherries go on take a byte
-
jschell wrote:
But my point is where does the "need" originate?
The business requirement for quicker profit aqnd a healthier economy. One facet of which is screw the employee for the cheapest rate and another facet is getting their product to market as quickly as possible for the most money. The supporting the product in a cost effective means. Also there is the strategic survival need , which superceeds cost - ie you have to change to stay in business in a certain time frame(maybe because of a change in the law) irrespective of cost.
jschell wrote:
Otherwise they can defer it
but why should they have to, if they have to pay X and its a toss up between a 6 month intro for a US Guy as against a 1 month intro for a H1b and by finishing 5 mnonths early (everything else being equal - I know I know big assumption) they make 5 months worth of profits and pay tax on those profits then why shouldnt they.
jschell wrote:
it at the DBA level
and if its for a DBA role (not a senior DBA role) then whats wrong with that. perhaps the senior DBA is being stupid for going down but thats there call.
jschell wrote:
If a company needs a project then they need to spend the money
Yes in certain circumstances for some projects. But another case would be if a company needs a project in a years time but wants to prototype it now , they may well hire US people for the main project and H1b's to prototype and prepare them for a technical leadership role in the main project. In this case they cant find the US People quick enough so why should they have to pay lots if extra cash for the H1b. we can probably spend ages trying to find examples in company projects that support both our sides but in the end I think it boils down to why a company should be forced to pay extra for a role to be filled from abroad. You seem to suggest if they do it will make them reconsider employing US citizens instead . This is like protectionism. If so I agree its always good to get your existing local talent working first. But sometimes you just cant and I cannot see the justification for making your companies (and indirectly your economy) suffer in this way when you have another mechanism for restricting H1bs and that is by using the quota.
jschell wrote
MartyK2007 wrote:
why a company should be forced to pay extra for a role to be filled from abroad
Why is the company in the US then?
MartyK2007 wrote:
seem to suggest if they do it will make them reconsider employing US citizens instead
Three times parity woud definitely make them reconsider US citizens.
MartyK2007 wrote:
But sometimes you just cant
And the other article link that I posted demonstrates that most of the time, not sometimes, the usage has nothing to do with that.
MartyK2007 wrote:
But sometimes you just cant and I cannot see the justification for making your companies (and indirectly your economy) suffer in this way
There is no evidence that it makes the economy suffer.
MartyK2007 wrote:
I would suggest that that is the case more often (another generlisation coming - sorry) in companies that do not used specialised products.
And I would suggest that you are not referring to the general market. The fact that you know of some companies that do that does not in fact generalize to cover the entire software market in the US. MOST companies that develope software in house do not - Have any process control at all - Have any position with the title (or equivalent) of Business Analyst - Have any means of quickly rolling in new workers.
MartyK2007 wrote:
I am a VB Programming - how long would it take me to learn C+ from scratch or ADA?
And the other article link that I posted demonstrates that the vast majority of H1B visas hires are not specialized.