You cant compare education pricing to the real world. Educational pricing for MS software is like 10-cents on the dollar, or thereabouts.
Plus much of the time the deal the school has with MS includes 'home use' rights for a pittance, which is not much more than the price of labor & materials to burn a new CD.
The claim was that H1-B participation increases unemployment in the US, which I disagreed with and argued against.
What part of that is 'ENTIRELY UNTRUE'?
Can you speak to any way in which you believe H1-B program participation increases unemployment?
Hate to feed the cowards, but this was too amusing
You are simply one of those stupid MBA-type business managers who have been duped into believing that foreign hires are better at software.
Really? Wow, thanks man. And here I thought I had a Math and CS degree and was the lead developer for a small business that I founded and own. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
There are MILLIONS of super-talented American developers right under your nose but you don't want to pay the going rate.
Really? Wow, thanks man. And here I thought I was the one championing amongst my peers that hiring in the top 10% of developers gives you an order of magnitude better developer. Glad you cleared that up for me.
Now mind you, I cant always afford to bring on a $100,000 per year veteran dev, but I can bring on a $40k per year young guy, and grow the business with him, so that 5-10 years from now he can make $100k in my business.
and keep on whining about how you can't find good people.
Who said I cant find good people? I have a fantastic team, and am very proud of the work they do. Not sure what you're referring to here.
Actually "everyone" doesn't get to keep their job, but happen to lose it to "superior" foreigners. One job for a "superior" foreigner is one job less for us.
Wow. Thats quite an archaic (and ineffective) choice of how you group the 'us' vs. 'them' in your world. Human beings are human beings. The concept that because someone lucked into being born in a different location than you makes them 'the enemy' is really sad, and a big part of what is wrong with this world.
Personally, I define 'us' as intelligent, hard working, decent (ie, moral and ethical) human beings. The random location of where they happen to be born and what government happens to claim them for taxation purposes has nothing to do with it.
Outsourcing of labor, isn't that far a concept to slavery.
If you really believe that, then you live in a very strange world indeed.
Do you outsource for house building, or do you do it yourself? What about for that computer you're using? Did you make it yourself? Or was it outsourced to someone else who is better at it, and can do it cheaper than you could.
Just because some outsourcing happens to cross an arbitrary national line doesnt make it anything different than local outsourcing.
It shouldn't be indians that tells us how we should work and in which conditions, but rather them asking to work in the same conditions that we enjoy here.
Indians tell you how you should work and in what conditions? Thats pretty weird.
In no way was I talking about offshoring, rather just the hiring of local vs. foreign. I think offshoring is usually a bad idea, but then again, my business is an american consultancy, so effectively, we're in competition with the offshoring companies.
Part of hiring people is hiring those with good think on their feet skills and good communication skills. That doesnt mean that they have to have English as a first language, just that they can communicate effectively.
A thick accent and lack of idiomatic knowledge of the language will often lose a person a job for me. But there are plenty of Asian-ethnicity people I've run into who have an accent, but are great communicators.
The sad part of your post is that you state that the best person that can be afforded, yet all these companies outsourcing and offshoring are by no means hurting financially. All they are trying to do is increase their revenue by cutting costs anywhere and everywhere possible. When it boils down to it, a company wants a contractor/consultant so they can fire them without the red tape or the legal issues around it.
You're overgeneralizing. While there are many cases (especially amongst the bigger companies) where this is the case, there are many legitimate reasons to outsource.
For example, many small and medium businesses dont have anyone in house who has skills in managing technical people. This makes it very hard for them to hire one or two IT folks and make it work well in the business.
Thats exactly the kind of client we want. With us, you dont have to know how to manage or hire technical people, thats what we do, and we're quite good at it. And it works. The vast, vast majority of our clients experience a net win by working with us, rather than trying to hire internally.
Thirdly there is a nasty fact of begger my neighbour that importing people from elsewhere implies. There are swathes of southern africa which struggle with no doctors or nurses, these places have trained these workers, but they have then been imported to western europe. This is very unfair for the local people who have invested in their training and support and now are stripped of the outcome. We should invest in our own skilled workers and leave other peoples where they are!
It's not a dictatorship. No one made them move. They decided that it was the best choice for themselves and then took action.
There's no big hand in the sky that is plucking all the talented people from African and flinging them to the US or western Europe.
And besides, its often quite a telling indicator that someone was willing to move and try something completely different. People that do that now and then in their lives tend to be much better, more rounded, more big picture sorts of people.
Provinciality breeds provincials.
Look around at your friends, how many of them are in the same town or village they grew up in and doing well? Most of my friends have moved away to get work
Thats usually a good thing! People that spend their whole lives with the same group of friends as they had in elementary or high school tend to be fairly limited. Travel and change builds character, builds a more global outlook, and tends to make better people.
I can see what you're saying, but in reality, most smart businesses dont hire people who are the most skilled at a narrow vertical of specific skills, but who is the overall better developer (there are exceptions, and you tend to see alot more of this at big orgs, who have incredibly niche software that they spent millions on, that they need to support).
This includes things like willingness to learn, ability to adapt, and solve general problems.
I should say that I dont have any direct experience with Indian ethnic folks.
But the chinese, Russian (or generally eastern european), Vietnamese and Korean folks I've worked with tend to be a cut above. If nothing else, they're willing to work hard and just 'get things done' without thinking that the occasional boring work was beneath them.
Again, I think its a cultural thing here in the states. Too many students coming out of college think that they'll be the next Gates or Brin or Ellison, and they genuinely get offended when you offer them a market wage commensurate with their experience. Or they get upset when they have to do 'boring' work, even if its just now and then. Or if its not fun and interesting work, they will barely work on it.
It's a cultural entitlement thing. People think that because they can program, they deserve to make six figures right out of college (again, not on the coasts).
I think everyone should have to spend 5 years starting and growing a small business, so they can get a clue what is actually involved with building something from nothing, and what hard work really is.
First, remember that we're talking about hiring college grads for entry level development positions. My statements are not true for seasoned veterans.
Lazy? I don't think so. Americans take less vacation time than Europeans. Are you one of those people who thinks you should get 8 hours of work out of an 8 hour day? You don't value time spent on anything but work that produces profits. You consider 5 minute breaks for a bit of solitaire or web surfing or chatting at the water cooler a complete waste of time. You frown on experiments and discourage innovations because they might not work.
So its nice that you can make up lots of things that arent true and try to label them on me, but lets stick to personal experiences or factual items please.
That being said, I do think I should get most of 8 hours of work out of a 9 hour day. A couple breaks are fine, a few minutes here and there on the web is fine. Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the bulk of devs out there who will get away with doing an hour or two of work per day, and reading slashdot the rest, if they can get away with it.
It's also self interest. The more effective a person is at their job, the more money the business makes, and the more money that staffer makes. Conversely, the less effective a person is, the less money the company makes, which puts their own job at risk.
Who is the authority on the appropriateness of any questioning? Surely not the same authorities who might be the ones being questioned? Somebody might be wrong, and it might be authority, or the questioner, or both or neither. It might all be a big unprofitable waste of time. Authority hates being questioned, and has the power to fire people who disagree.
A newly graduated college student, for the vast majority of them, dont have the experience, perspective, or skills to have opinions on anything but things narrowly focused on their job. Ie, code, design, etc. They generally have zero idea about what it takes to run a business, to constantly have to bring in revenue so that everyone gets paid, or how to effectively deal with troublesome customers in a way that builds the relationship and makes the company more money.
There are a rare few that are gems, but in general, college grads are incredibly green.
I have no doubt that with an attitude like that, the grads who aren't idiots and who therefore have choices don't choose to work for you, and you never even learn they exist. You're suffering from selection bias.
The grads who arent idiots I hire, or at least try to. They are a small minority.
Did you not read my post which you replied to?
It is NOT about pushing down wages.
It IS about hiring from a better candidate pool.
I'll try to go through it again.
Out of the overall pool of people that will apply for any entry level programming job you'll put up in the states, 10% or less are even worth interviewing. Thats a pretty bad ratio.
The H1-B pool in the US tends to be higher quality, on average, than the general pool of all applicants in the US. So you get to automatically have a selection applied, and the pool is higher quality.
Please do _say_ that you're referring to entry level work, then.
TFA is about hiring college grads, so I didnt think it needed to be explicitly stated.
Based on the responses though, maybe I should have.
I don't know where you're working. Such poor work habits have only been the case in one environment I've ever seen
This is the last 12 years of hiring software developers and starting up and running a consultancy.
Mind you, its largely a younger person phenomenon (not that Im a greybeard yet, mid-30's).
A classic case is a brilliant developer who cant figure out how to not sabotage their own job, even after getting fired several times in a row. He just keeps doing the same dumb ass things over and over.
American workers are more willing to question authority.
Questioning authority is okay, when its appropriate.
But you have to remember, we're talking about entry-level jobs here, about college grads. Most college grads are idiots. They may be decent at laying code, but when it comes to big picture things like client relationship, 'good enough' vs. perfect, and the inevitable compromise that comes when running a business.
What I see alot of though is a college grad who thinks he knows better than the business owner, or director of their department, though they dont have a freaking clue about the bigger picture. Their viewpoints are very provincial and limited. This isnt a slam of anyone in particular, except youth. Youth has good energy and often great attitude, but terriblly limited viewpoints.
In addition, they get pissed of when they cant make $75k their first year out of college (particularly where we live, which isnt a coast).
So maybe we're talking about different things. Questioning authority is fine, but it takes most software devs 10 years to get enough experience to be able to ask meaningful questions, outside of a very narrow coding scope.
People who call themselves Americans are campaigning for more H1-B visas when US employment is scratching 10 percent.
The two things are not related.
Corps wanting more H1-B visas are all about qualified applicants. No business can ever get enough of the top 10% of people in a field, you're always looking for more.
A high-percentage of the people coming over in H1-B visas are above average, so its a nice high quality pool.
The unemployment rate will tend to knock off the very bottom rungs of the field. The top 10% never suffer for lack of work, and the top 40% will always be able to find something, if not instantly.
So to summ: hiring fewer H1-B visa staffers wouldnt solve the 10% unemployment rate, as that 10% tends to be the bottom 10% of the field (yes, I know even good people get laid off when businesses downside or close, but they also find jobs quickly).
You'll suddenly find yourself working for minimum wage. That's what certain executive-types are trying to do to technology.
This process isnt some big evil conspiracy by the evil rich white men.
It's a fundamental phenomenon in (more or less) free market economies.
If a field makes more than the others, and anyone can enter, then people will continue to enter and drive down the price until there is no more inherent benefit to that field compared to others.
It doesnt require black-clad robber barons oppressing the weak for this to happen, it'll happen all by itself.
It is really about a race to the bottom via who will work for less, and who will work sweatshop hours for ppl that run the companies that make idiotic decisions like they did during the DOT COM daze.
I think you miss the point of a free market economy. Competition pushes all prices down.
Technology, innovation, and better processes improve productivity, which pushes prices down even farther.
This is what we want, and also utterly inevitable.
The end-result (which will probably require a fairly painful transition point) is when the bulk of the consumer goods are produced for nothing or close to nothing. As this happens, the work moves to creative roles and services.
Do we really want people doing sweat shop manufacturing work? Or do we want them doing creative and innovative work?
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
