Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445458 > unrolled thread

H-1B Reform

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  H-1B Reform bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 08:16 -0800
    Re: H-1B Reform George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-01-31 09:15 -0800
    Re: H-1B Reform Martin Riddle <martin_rid@verizon.net> - 2017-01-31 20:11 -0500
      Re: H-1B Reform Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-01-31 22:49 -0500
      Re: H-1B Reform dakupoto@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 22:52 -0800
        Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 07:23 -0800
          Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:02 -0500
            Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0800
              Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0500
                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:49 -0800
                  Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:18 -0500
                    Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 10:02 -0800
                      Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 20:21 -0500
                        Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 08:08 -0800
                          Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:28 -0500
                            Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 10:05 -0800
                              Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:13 -0500
                                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 12:16 -0800
                                  Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:13 -0500
                                    Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 07:19 -0800
                              Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 13:42 -0500
                                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 12:06 -0800
          Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 03:18 -0500
            Re: H-1B Reform bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 03:17 -0800
            Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 07:51 -0800
              Re: H-1B Reform makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 10:08 -0800
                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 10:11 -0800
                  Re: H-1B Reform Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 12:53 -0800
                    Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 -0800
                Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:36 +0000
                Re: H-1B Reform Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-02-08 17:20 -0500
                  Re: H-1B Reform krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:14 -0500
              Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 19:36 -0500
                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 08:02 -0800
                  Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-07 17:01 -0500
                  Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 20:33 -0500
                    Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 08:18 -0800
                      Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:02 -0500
                        Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-08 14:36 -0800
                          Re: H-1B Reform rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:12 -0500
                            Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 07:42 -0800
                              Re: H-1B Reform Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-02-09 11:02 -0500
                                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
                                Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-09 14:34 -0500
                                  Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 12:27 -0800
                                    Re: H-1B Reform Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-09 15:33 -0500
                                      Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 12:40 -0800
                                Re: H-1B Reform bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:58 -0800
          Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:10 +0000
            Re: H-1B Reform Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 09:24 -0800
              Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 18:05 +0000
                Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 10:18 -0800
                  Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:41 +0000
                    Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 13:31 -0800
                      Re: H-1B Reform Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 22:05 +0000
                        Re: H-1B Reform Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:56 -0800
        Re: H-1B Reform mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-05 10:32 -0500
          Re: H-1B Reform Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-05 19:15 +0100
            Re: H-1B Reform mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-05 23:06 -0500
              Re: H-1B Reform bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 03:24 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#446830

On 02/08/2017 01:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-08 09:28, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:08:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-02-07 17:21, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:02:30 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-02-07 09:18, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 07:49:06 -0800, Joerg
>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2017-02-06 17:26, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:27:48 -0800, Joerg
>>>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-02-05 15:02, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                      ...  It really is impossible to find
>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of
>>>>>>>>>> contractors, quickly, in the US.  H1B contractors fill the
>>>>>>>>>> crests in
>>>>>>>>>> workload so the employee base is more stable (we have a number of
>>>>>>>>>> contract EEs, too, but they're not H1Bs).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly ok to use H1B contractors. However, they need to
>>>>>>>>> be paid
>>>>>>>>> prevailing wage or higher and that must be _verified_ which is
>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>> easy to do. I have suggested that all the time but it wasn't
>>>>>>>>> done. Now
>>>>>>>>> it will be because the new administration seems to understand
>>>>>>>>> some stuff
>>>>>>>>> that previous ones didn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The H1Bs at my CPoE aren't paid the same as employees, sure, but
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> don't have the same responsibilities, either.  They're basically
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> jockeys.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once they have to start paying them $130k/year each they will
>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> find Americans for that job, and fast. There are plenty of un- or
>>>>>>> under-employed coders around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they'd just move *all* jobs overseas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, that can happen. Then we need to find out why we cannot perform
>>>>> these design tasks here and do something about it.
>>>>
>>>> We can (do), if the government would let it alone.  My job has been
>>>> "off-shored" from somewhere else.  Do you want to stop that, too?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not. Moving design tasks to where the talent is has always
>>> been a smart idea. Same if you can obtain sufficiently good results at a
>>> lower cost. In a world economy every region has to compete against
>>> another. Competiton is a good thing. What each region should, therefore,
>>> do is level the playing field.
>>
>> OK, so you want to leave the *foreign* US jobs here but don't want to
>> import *any* foreign workers to fill short-term positions, even if
>> they're paid similarly to (unavailable) locals, for the same skills.
>
>
> Huh? Where did I ever say that?
>
>
>> You want to export *all* of those salaries.  You want your cake and
>> eat it too.  Got it.
>>
>>>> Getting rid of H1Bs is a good way to do it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They would still use your design team if they can't get the results
>>> locally.
>>
>> They were doing it at home but it makes sense to do it closer to the
>> customer.  If the job is made more difficult to do here, it won't be.
>> That's the bottom line (for all business decisions).
>>
>
> Sure. That should always be made possible. It's got nothing to do with
> H1B, that is simply having a foreign design center.
>
>
>>>>>>> H1B was meant to obtain special talent that could not be found in
>>>>>>> the US
>>>>>>> or where we simply don't have enough engineers, not for hiring
>>>>>>> scores of
>>>>>>> cheap programmers. Now it will (hopefully) revert to that
>>>>>>> original intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Special" has lots of meanings.  The restriction is that the job is
>>>>>> unfillable with resident labor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are they unfillable?
>>>>
>>>> Because not enough people want a three or six month programming job
>>>> with no chance of direct hire.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have met lots of people who do. Also, that still beats being unable to
>>> make a good living or being stuck in some cheap apartment.
>>
>> But they *will* be stuck in a cheap apartment.  That's the nature of
>> short-term contract work.  BTDT.
>>
>
> It is not. I do this for a living. So why am I not stuck in a cheap
> apartment?

Or I?  I do the same thing.

>
>
>>> For me, having shorter term stints (until a project is complete) is fun.
>>> It provides a smorgasbord of tasks for me which are all different. Just
>>> as I want it. There are not many hardware engineers who feel that way
>>> but many programmers do.
>>
>> They simply don't want to move for short-term work.  You don't have to
>> because they come to you.  Different kettle.
>
>
> It can be the same for programmers. They just have to become good enough
> so people either come to them or are willing to do it remotely. We live
> in a high-cost country and the only way to keep a decent job, temporary
> or not, is by becoming good enough at what one is doing.
>
> Example: The programmer for one of the projects I am involved in lives
> and works in his own home about 7000 miles from here. It works. Another
> works from his home about 3-4 miles from here and has mostly West Coast
> clients. Whenever we have to work together I usually go there by
> mountain bike. Even if we could get a certain task done remotely I
> sometimes rode (and did not bill my client for that travel time) because
> it's fun and healthy.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> For certain high-skill or niche jobs it is certainly true. WRT
>>>>> programmers what I hear is more like the first part of this article,
>>>>> they are heaving trouble finding enough gigs or employment:
>>>>
>>>> But they don't want to move for short term employment, either.
>>>
>>> There are more people than you think who abhor office politics and
>>> prefer freelancing just because of that.
>>
>> It's *NOT* freelancing.  It's contract work.  You're still working for
>> an employer.  Two, in fact.
>>
>
> If people feel like not marketing their skills themselves then they have
> to live with the middleman company. I never did and never will.

I sometimes do expert witness work through agencies, but never 
engineering.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446845

On 2017-02-08 10:42, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 02/08/2017 01:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-02-08 09:28, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:08:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-02-07 17:21, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:02:30 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

[...]

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are they unfillable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because not enough people want a three or six month programming job
>>>>> with no chance of direct hire.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have met lots of people who do. Also, that still beats being
>>>> unable to
>>>> make a good living or being stuck in some cheap apartment.
>>>
>>> But they *will* be stuck in a cheap apartment.  That's the nature of
>>> short-term contract work.  BTDT.
>>>
>>
>> It is not. I do this for a living. So why am I not stuck in a cheap
>> apartment?
>
> Or I?  I do the same thing.
>

Many people do. It just works, especially in America.


>>
>>>> For me, having shorter term stints (until a project is complete) is
>>>> fun.
>>>> It provides a smorgasbord of tasks for me which are all different. Just
>>>> as I want it. There are not many hardware engineers who feel that way
>>>> but many programmers do.
>>>
>>> They simply don't want to move for short-term work.  You don't have to
>>> because they come to you.  Different kettle.
>>
>>
>> It can be the same for programmers. They just have to become good enough
>> so people either come to them or are willing to do it remotely. We live
>> in a high-cost country and the only way to keep a decent job, temporary
>> or not, is by becoming good enough at what one is doing.
>>
>> Example: The programmer for one of the projects I am involved in lives
>> and works in his own home about 7000 miles from here. It works. Another
>> works from his home about 3-4 miles from here and has mostly West Coast
>> clients. Whenever we have to work together I usually go there by
>> mountain bike. Even if we could get a certain task done remotely I
>> sometimes rode (and did not bill my client for that travel time) because
>> it's fun and healthy.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For certain high-skill or niche jobs it is certainly true. WRT
>>>>>> programmers what I hear is more like the first part of this article,
>>>>>> they are heaving trouble finding enough gigs or employment:
>>>>>
>>>>> But they don't want to move for short term employment, either.
>>>>
>>>> There are more people than you think who abhor office politics and
>>>> prefer freelancing just because of that.
>>>
>>> It's *NOT* freelancing.  It's contract work.  You're still working for
>>> an employer.  Two, in fact.
>>>
>>
>> If people feel like not marketing their skills themselves then they have
>> to live with the middleman company. I never did and never will.
>
> I sometimes do expert witness work through agencies, but never engineering.
>

I once had a potential client but then they wanted to go through a large 
agency. The people there were very nice but didn't really have a clue 
what they were looking for. Then they wanted me to work under a W2 
relationship so we parted ways. That was after they wanted and called 
references, something nobody else ever requested. What a waste of time.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446383

On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>
>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>
>
> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent basis?
> The day has only 24h.
>
>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>> sites.
>>
>
> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B. Running a
> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much lower
> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries overseas.
> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>
> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an administration
> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly can't
> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The companies
> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.

The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage. 
But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers 
have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has 
been the hard and ineffective part.

Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved 
ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a 
lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture 
what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving 
the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't 
provide what was really needed.

I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a 
competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all the 
departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a product 
other than what was intended by the marketing group.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446388

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:19:04 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
> > On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
> >>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
> >>>
> >>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
> >>>
> >
> > Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent basis?
> > The day has only 24h.
> >
> >
> >>> Cheers
> >>
> >> That is very well said. And now more and more
> >> US high tech companies will try to outsource
> >> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
> >> sites.
> >>
> >
> > They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B. Running a
> > software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
> > of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much lower
> > because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries overseas.
> > Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
> > will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
> >
> > Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
> > to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an administration
> > that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly can't
> > find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The companies
> > I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
> > beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
> 
> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage. 
> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers 
> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has 
> been the hard and ineffective part.
> 
> Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved 
> ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a 
> lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture 
> what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving 
> the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't 
> provide what was really needed.
> 
> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a 
> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all the 
> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a product 
> other than what was intended by the marketing group.

My memories of such situations tended to involve the marketing group claiming that they could not expect to sell anything if it didn't deliver twice the performance of the existing product at half the price in half the volume, and with half the power consumption.

Trying to get them to tell us which one of those desiderata might be more important was a lost cause.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446423

On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>
>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>
>>
>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent basis?
>> The day has only 24h.
>>
>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>> sites.
>>>
>>
>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B. Running a
>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much lower
>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries overseas.
>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>
>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an administration
>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly can't
>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The companies
>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>
> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage.
> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers
> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
> been the hard and ineffective part.
>

Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with ease 
were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it should.

We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has been. 
The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I 
have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B 
worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it 
was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in 
America or simply do not have enough of.


> Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved
> ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a
> lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture
> what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving
> the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't
> provide what was really needed.
>

True, and it can lead to the whole project being outsourced because then 
there are less disconnects. Or is can result in failure.


> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all the
> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a product
> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>

Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some. 
Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of 
all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ 
wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade 
show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much anymore. 
My current clients operate in true visionary mode.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446434

 So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it 
> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in 
> America or simply do not have enough of.
> 

at the going pay rate?

maybe that means the "going rate" needs to be raised?

Ultimately it IS all about salary.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446435

On 2017-02-06 10:08, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>   So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>
>
> at the going pay rate?
>

Yup. Ideally higher because if a company really needs certain talent 
they should be willing to pay a premium. If they don't then the need 
obviously isn't that great.


> maybe that means the "going rate" needs to be raised?
>

That seems to be what the new administration is doing.


> Ultimately it IS all about salary.
>

Yup.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446462

Den mandag den 6. februar 2017 kl. 19.10.58 UTC+1 skrev Joerg:
> On 2017-02-06 10:08, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
> >   So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
> >> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
> >> America or simply do not have enough of.
> >>
> >
> > at the going pay rate?
> >
> 
> Yup. Ideally higher because if a company really needs certain talent 
> they should be willing to pay a premium. If they don't then the need 
> obviously isn't that great.
> 

I was in the US for while on an L1B, that can't have been cheap since the company paid my salary, car, apartment, per diem, gas allowance and 
planes tickets

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446466

On 2017-02-06 12:53, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> Den mandag den 6. februar 2017 kl. 19.10.58 UTC+1 skrev Joerg:
>> On 2017-02-06 10:08, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>    So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
>>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>>>
>>>
>>> at the going pay rate?
>>>
>>
>> Yup. Ideally higher because if a company really needs certain talent
>> they should be willing to pay a premium. If they don't then the need
>> obviously isn't that great.
>>
>
> I was in the US for while on an L1B, that can't have been cheap since the company paid my salary, car, apartment, per diem, gas allowance and
> planes tickets
>

This is how it is supposed to be. I assume that is a reputable company.

AFAIK L-visa rules do not care much about salary because they are for 
intra-company exchanges of a very temprary nature. H1B can run two 
concurrent phases for a total of six years unless they changed the rules 
(and they might now).

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446457

On 06/02/17 18:08, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>  So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>
>
> at the going pay rate?
>
> maybe that means the "going rate" needs to be raised?
>
> Ultimately it IS all about salary.

More important: the difference between salary and
non-optional expenses, i.e. the disposable income.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446885

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:08:17 -0800 (PST), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:


>Ultimately it IS all about salary.

Yup.  I heard on the news last week that some congresscrittrer had
introduced a bill that would set the minimum wage for an H1B worker at
$120,000.  I think that's just what is needed.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com 
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446936

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:20:15 -0500, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:08:17 -0800 (PST), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Ultimately it IS all about salary.
>
>Yup.  I heard on the news last week that some congresscrittrer had
>introduced a bill that would set the minimum wage for an H1B worker at
>$120,000.  I think that's just what is needed.

Might as well chase more jobs overseas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446526

On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>>
>>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent basis?
>>> The day has only 24h.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>>> sites.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B. Running a
>>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
>>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much lower
>>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries overseas.
>>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>>
>>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
>>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an administration
>>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly can't
>>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The companies
>>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
>>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>>
>> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage.
>> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers
>> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
>> been the hard and ineffective part.
>>
>
> Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with ease
> were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it should.

Yes, the cause of every problem is somnambulist civil servants.  Mostly 
likely the cause is lack of sufficient resources allocated by Congress. 
Trump and Congress can pass any law they want, but if they don't pony up 
the money to pay for enforcement....


> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has been.
> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B
> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
> America or simply do not have enough of.

My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his 
replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six months 
or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.  Then he 
came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work the 
system to your benefit.


>> Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved
>> ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a
>> lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture
>> what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving
>> the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't
>> provide what was really needed.
>>
>
> True, and it can lead to the whole project being outsourced because then
> there are less disconnects. Or is can result in failure.

You mean disband the company and start again as an Indian start up?


>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all the
>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a product
>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>
>
> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some.
> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade
> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much anymore.
> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.

"Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to mean. 
A company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to 
negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements, then 
where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't give 
it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446647

On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent
>>>> basis?
>>>> The day has only 24h.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>>>> sites.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B. Running a
>>>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
>>>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much lower
>>>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries
>>>> overseas.
>>>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>>>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>>>
>>>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
>>>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an administration
>>>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly can't
>>>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The companies
>>>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
>>>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>>>
>>> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage.
>>> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers
>>> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
>>> been the hard and ineffective part.
>>>
>>
>> Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with ease
>> were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it
>> should.
>
> Yes, the cause of every problem is somnambulist civil servants.  Mostly
> likely the cause is lack of sufficient resources allocated by Congress.
> Trump and Congress can pass any law they want, but if they don't pony up
> the money to pay for enforcement....
>

A computer can monitor this. One method: Each H1B visa holder must agree 
that their tax return info _and_ monthly bank account balances are 
automatically sent over to the DOL. There, the computer crunches the 
numbers. Only when the computer goes BEEEEP does anyone look into the 
numbers and sends out an auditor. These people can be paid from a pot 
filled by the penalties that abusing companies are slapped with. No need 
to allocate anything. Simple.

>
>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has been.
>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B
>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>
> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six months
> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.  Then he
> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work the
> system to your benefit.
>

He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that 
will hopefully end soon.

>
>>> Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved
>>> ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a
>>> lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture
>>> what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving
>>> the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't
>>> provide what was really needed.
>>>
>>
>> True, and it can lead to the whole project being outsourced because then
>> there are less disconnects. Or is can result in failure.
>
> You mean disband the company and start again as an Indian start up?
>

Some outsource whole projects offshore and it doesn't matter much 
whether they start something knew there or use an existing contracting 
house. It can work but with intricate projects it can seriously 
backfire. I know some examples where it did.

>
>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all the
>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a product
>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>
>>
>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some.
>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade
>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much anymore.
>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>
> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to mean. A
> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements, then
> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't give
> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>

What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and 
marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they 
do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this resulted in 
is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded that 
100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design 
improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I 
married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446693

On 02/07/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent
>>>>> basis?
>>>>> The day has only 24h.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>>>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>>>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>>>>> sites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B.
>>>>> Running a
>>>>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
>>>>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much
>>>>> lower
>>>>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries
>>>>> overseas.
>>>>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>>>>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>>>>
>>>>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
>>>>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an
>>>>> administration
>>>>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly
>>>>> can't
>>>>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The
>>>>> companies
>>>>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
>>>>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>>>>
>>>> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage.
>>>> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers
>>>> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
>>>> been the hard and ineffective part.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with ease
>>> were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it
>>> should.
>>
>> Yes, the cause of every problem is somnambulist civil servants.  Mostly
>> likely the cause is lack of sufficient resources allocated by Congress.
>> Trump and Congress can pass any law they want, but if they don't pony up
>> the money to pay for enforcement....
>>
>
> A computer can monitor this. One method: Each H1B visa holder must agree
> that their tax return info _and_ monthly bank account balances are
> automatically sent over to the DOL. There, the computer crunches the
> numbers. Only when the computer goes BEEEEP does anyone look into the
> numbers and sends out an auditor. These people can be paid from a pot
> filled by the penalties that abusing companies are slapped with. No need
> to allocate anything. Simple.
>
>>
>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has been.
>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B
>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>
>> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
>> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six months
>> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.  Then he
>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work the
>> system to your benefit.
>>
>
> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that
> will hopefully end soon.
>
>>
>>>> Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved
>>>> ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a
>>>> lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture
>>>> what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving
>>>> the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't
>>>> provide what was really needed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True, and it can lead to the whole project being outsourced because then
>>> there are less disconnects. Or is can result in failure.
>>
>> You mean disband the company and start again as an Indian start up?
>>
>
> Some outsource whole projects offshore and it doesn't matter much
> whether they start something knew there or use an existing contracting
> house. It can work but with intricate projects it can seriously
> backfire. I know some examples where it did.
>
>>
>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all
>>>> the
>>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a
>>>> product
>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some.
>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade
>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much anymore.
>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>>
>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to mean. A
>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements, then
>> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't give
>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>>
>
> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and
> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they
> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this resulted in
> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded that
> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design
> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I
> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)
>

Your sales resistance is obviously low. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446718

On 2/7/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent
>>>>> basis?
>>>>> The day has only 24h.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>>>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>>>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>>>>> sites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B.
>>>>> Running a
>>>>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and housing
>>>>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much
>>>>> lower
>>>>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries
>>>>> overseas.
>>>>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>>>>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>>>>
>>>>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect way
>>>>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an
>>>>> administration
>>>>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly
>>>>> can't
>>>>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The
>>>>> companies
>>>>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
>>>>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>>>>
>>>> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing wage.
>>>> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this workers
>>>> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
>>>> been the hard and ineffective part.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with ease
>>> were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it
>>> should.
>>
>> Yes, the cause of every problem is somnambulist civil servants.  Mostly
>> likely the cause is lack of sufficient resources allocated by Congress.
>> Trump and Congress can pass any law they want, but if they don't pony up
>> the money to pay for enforcement....
>>
>
> A computer can monitor this. One method: Each H1B visa holder must agree
> that their tax return info _and_ monthly bank account balances are
> automatically sent over to the DOL. There, the computer crunches the
> numbers. Only when the computer goes BEEEEP does anyone look into the
> numbers and sends out an auditor. These people can be paid from a pot
> filled by the penalties that abusing companies are slapped with. No need
> to allocate anything. Simple.

Can we hire H-1B visa holders to program the computers?


>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has been.
>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B
>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the way it
>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>
>> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
>> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six months
>> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.  Then he
>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work the
>> system to your benefit.
>>
>
> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that
> will hopefully end soon.

I don't recall the details, but when I dug into the H-1B thing the vast 
majority of visa holders worked for huge temp companies essentially and 
they were not doing high level engineering work.  It was more like IT or 
similar level work.  Ask a company to pay them $130k a year will simply 
kill the entire H-1B program.

I believe you are addressing a problem that isn't really very big.


>>>> Outsourcing has been tried for design work and it has often proved
>>>> ineffective.  The examples I have been witness to failed because of a
>>>> lack of communication where written requirements didn't fully capture
>>>> what was needed in a design and there were no design reviews involving
>>>> the US company.  The result was a product that met spec, but didn't
>>>> provide what was really needed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True, and it can lead to the whole project being outsourced because then
>>> there are less disconnects. Or is can result in failure.
>>
>> You mean disband the company and start again as an Indian start up?
>>
>
> Some outsource whole projects offshore and it doesn't matter much
> whether they start something knew there or use an existing contracting
> house. It can work but with intricate projects it can seriously
> backfire. I know some examples where it did.

I believe most companies have learned their lesson about that.


>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all
>>>> the
>>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a
>>>> product
>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some.
>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade
>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much anymore.
>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>>
>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to mean. A
>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements, then
>> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't give
>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>>
>
> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and
> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they
> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this resulted in
> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded that
> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design
> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I
> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)

I don't know what companies you have worked for, but "gratification" 
comes from management.  They make the rules and if they reward marketing 
for doing lousy work, that's not marketing's fault.  We *all* respond to 
the stimulus and rewards we receive.  Engineering as well.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446784

On 2017-02-07 17:33, rickman wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent
>>>>>> basis?
>>>>>> The day has only 24h.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>>>>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>>>>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>>>>>> sites.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B.
>>>>>> Running a
>>>>>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and
>>>>>> housing
>>>>>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much
>>>>>> lower
>>>>>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries
>>>>>> overseas.
>>>>>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>>>>>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an
>>>>>> administration
>>>>>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The
>>>>>> companies
>>>>>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they paid
>>>>>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>>>>>
>>>>> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing
>>>>> wage.
>>>>> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this
>>>>> workers
>>>>> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
>>>>> been the hard and ineffective part.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with
>>>> ease
>>>> were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it
>>>> should.
>>>
>>> Yes, the cause of every problem is somnambulist civil servants.  Mostly
>>> likely the cause is lack of sufficient resources allocated by Congress.
>>> Trump and Congress can pass any law they want, but if they don't pony up
>>> the money to pay for enforcement....
>>>
>>
>> A computer can monitor this. One method: Each H1B visa holder must agree
>> that their tax return info _and_ monthly bank account balances are
>> automatically sent over to the DOL. There, the computer crunches the
>> numbers. Only when the computer goes BEEEEP does anyone look into the
>> numbers and sends out an auditor. These people can be paid from a pot
>> filled by the penalties that abusing companies are slapped with. No need
>> to allocate anything. Simple.
>
> Can we hire H-1B visa holders to program the computers?
>

Sure you can. But starting this year you have to pay big bucks for that. 
As it should be with H1B.


>
>>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has
>>>> been.
>>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
>>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B
>>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the
>>>> way it
>>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>>
>>> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
>>> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six months
>>> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.  Then he
>>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work the
>>> system to your benefit.
>>>
>>
>> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that
>> will hopefully end soon.
>
> I don't recall the details, but when I dug into the H-1B thing the vast
> majority of visa holders worked for huge temp companies essentially and
> they were not doing high level engineering work.  It was more like IT or
> similar level work.  Ask a company to pay them $130k a year will simply
> kill the entire H-1B program.
>

It will not. H1B allows us to hire that specialist from overseas 
elsewhere that brings fresh ideas into a project. It allows us to hire 
the brightest minds to keep America at the top of high-tech. That is 
what H1B was designed for.


> I believe you are addressing a problem that isn't really very big.
>

It is big to all those people like your cousin because it messes with 
their making a living.

H1B is a wonderful program and abolishing it like some short-sighted 
pundits are advocating would be flat wrong. It needs to simply be 
brought back to its original intent. All the protection measures are 
already in the law, always have been. We as a country simply need to 
adhere to them and that unfortunately means enforcement of rules.

[...]


>>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all
>>>>> the
>>>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a
>>>>> product
>>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some.
>>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
>>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade
>>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much anymore.
>>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>>>
>>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to mean. A
>>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
>>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements, then
>>> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't give
>>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>>>
>>
>> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and
>> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they
>> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this resulted in
>> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded that
>> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design
>> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I
>> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)
>
> I don't know what companies you have worked for, but "gratification"
> comes from management.  They make the rules and if they reward marketing
> for doing lousy work, that's not marketing's fault.  We *all* respond to
> the stimulus and rewards we receive.  Engineering as well.
>

Marketing is usually under the VP or Sales. Sales is traditionally 
driven by commissions. Hence ...

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446879

On 2/8/2017 11:18 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-07 17:33, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/7/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-02-06 00:18, rickman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/2017 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2017-02-04 22:52, dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-5, Martin Riddle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:16:27 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>>>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is going to fly like a lead balloon:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zg8k64f
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So instead of displacing 1 american worker, they'll displace 2?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh? How can a single engineer do the work of two on a consistent
>>>>>>> basis?
>>>>>>> The day has only 24h.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is very well said. And now more and more
>>>>>>>> US high tech companies will try to outsource
>>>>>>>> as many of their jobs as possible to off-shore
>>>>>>>> sites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They'll do that anyhow and that's got nothing to do with H1B.
>>>>>>> Running a
>>>>>>> software outfit overseas is cheaper than paying for travel and
>>>>>>> housing
>>>>>>> of someone temporarily moved over here. The pay will also be much
>>>>>>> lower
>>>>>>> because the cost of daily life is much lower in many countries
>>>>>>> overseas.
>>>>>>> Also, there can't be import tariffs on it because their work results
>>>>>>> will flow across the borders on "singing wires".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Raising and most of all enforcing the required wage is the perfect
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> to fix H1B and I've always said that. Finally we have an
>>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>> that understand it. H1B is meant to haul in talent where we truly
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> find an engineer for, not to obtain work results cheaper. The
>>>>>>> companies
>>>>>>> I worked for used H1B for exactly that intended purpose and they
>>>>>>> paid
>>>>>>> beaucoup bucks for those folks in salary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The required wage for H-1B workers has always been the prevailing
>>>>>> wage.
>>>>>> But I seem to recall that most of the jobs being filled by this
>>>>>> workers
>>>>>> have not been higher paying engineering jobs.  Still, enforcement has
>>>>>> been the hard and ineffective part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, because the bureaucrats who could have monitored this with
>>>>> ease
>>>>> were asleep at the wheel. That is now likely going to change and it
>>>>> should.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the cause of every problem is somnambulist civil servants.  Mostly
>>>> likely the cause is lack of sufficient resources allocated by Congress.
>>>> Trump and Congress can pass any law they want, but if they don't
>>>> pony up
>>>> the money to pay for enforcement....
>>>>
>>>
>>> A computer can monitor this. One method: Each H1B visa holder must agree
>>> that their tax return info _and_ monthly bank account balances are
>>> automatically sent over to the DOL. There, the computer crunches the
>>> numbers. Only when the computer goes BEEEEP does anyone look into the
>>> numbers and sends out an auditor. These people can be paid from a pot
>>> filled by the penalties that abusing companies are slapped with. No need
>>> to allocate anything. Simple.
>>
>> Can we hire H-1B visa holders to program the computers?
>>
>
> Sure you can. But starting this year you have to pay big bucks for that.
> As it should be with H1B.
>
>
>>
>>>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has
>>>>> been.
>>>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
>>>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an H1B
>>>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the
>>>>> way it
>>>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>>>
>>>> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
>>>> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six months
>>>> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.
>>>> Then he
>>>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work the
>>>> system to your benefit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that
>>> will hopefully end soon.
>>
>> I don't recall the details, but when I dug into the H-1B thing the vast
>> majority of visa holders worked for huge temp companies essentially and
>> they were not doing high level engineering work.  It was more like IT or
>> similar level work.  Ask a company to pay them $130k a year will simply
>> kill the entire H-1B program.
>>
>
> It will not. H1B allows us to hire that specialist from overseas
> elsewhere that brings fresh ideas into a project. It allows us to hire
> the brightest minds to keep America at the top of high-tech. That is
> what H1B was designed for.

Except that is not what it is being used for.  The proposed changes will 
eliminate abuse, but it does nothing to *encourage* proper use.


>> I believe you are addressing a problem that isn't really very big.
>>
>
> It is big to all those people like your cousin because it messes with
> their making a living.

My cousin was very happy.


> H1B is a wonderful program and abolishing it like some short-sighted
> pundits are advocating would be flat wrong. It needs to simply be
> brought back to its original intent. All the protection measures are
> already in the law, always have been. We as a country simply need to
> adhere to them and that unfortunately means enforcement of rules.

It is still bringing in workers where there is no shortage.


>>>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a
>>>>>> product
>>>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen some.
>>>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
>>>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>>>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming trade
>>>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much
>>>>> anymore.
>>>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>>>>
>>>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to
>>>> mean. A
>>>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
>>>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements,
>>>> then
>>>> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't
>>>> give
>>>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and
>>> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they
>>> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this resulted in
>>> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded that
>>> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design
>>> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I
>>> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)
>>
>> I don't know what companies you have worked for, but "gratification"
>> comes from management.  They make the rules and if they reward marketing
>> for doing lousy work, that's not marketing's fault.  We *all* respond to
>> the stimulus and rewards we receive.  Engineering as well.
>>
>
> Marketing is usually under the VP or Sales. Sales is traditionally
> driven by commissions. Hence ...

No, marketing is *not* "under" sales in any company I've worked for. 
Regardless, ultimate control over commissions and everything else in a 
company is by management.  They can create good, or create bad. 
Obviously not every company has the issues you mention, so there must be 
ways to solve the problem.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446889

On 2017-02-08 14:02, rickman wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 11:18 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-02-07 17:33, rickman wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:


[...]

>>>
>>>>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has
>>>>>> been.
>>>>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this law. I
>>>>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an
>>>>>> H1B
>>>>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the
>>>>>> way it
>>>>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>>>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>>>>
>>>>> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
>>>>> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six
>>>>> months
>>>>> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.
>>>>> Then he
>>>>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work
>>>>> the
>>>>> system to your benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that
>>>> will hopefully end soon.
>>>
>>> I don't recall the details, but when I dug into the H-1B thing the vast
>>> majority of visa holders worked for huge temp companies essentially and
>>> they were not doing high level engineering work.  It was more like IT or
>>> similar level work.  Ask a company to pay them $130k a year will simply
>>> kill the entire H-1B program.
>>>
>>
>> It will not. H1B allows us to hire that specialist from overseas
>> elsewhere that brings fresh ideas into a project. It allows us to hire
>> the brightest minds to keep America at the top of high-tech. That is
>> what H1B was designed for.
>
> Except that is not what it is being used for.  The proposed changes will
> eliminate abuse, but it does nothing to *encourage* proper use.
>

It's simple: A company needs a certain talent, tries their best 
domestically, can't find anyone. Then they go international, find 
someone, file for the visa and pay accordingly. This is proper use.

Improper use is what happens nowadays. Companies hire scores of coders 
and others on the cheap, the whole program runs into the cap in a jiffy 
and when another company desperately needs someone in August they are 
screwed. Because the cap had been reached long ago.

Therefore, the proposed changes setting a high minimum pay encourage 
proper use by curbing improper use. Most of all it will prevent 
companies from illegally displacing American workers.

>
>>> I believe you are addressing a problem that isn't really very big.
>>>
>>
>> It is big to all those people like your cousin because it messes with
>> their making a living.
>
> My cousin was very happy.
>

He was lucky that he got back in. Most are not so lucky and have to join 
the ranks of the un- or underemployed.

>
>> H1B is a wonderful program and abolishing it like some short-sighted
>> pundits are advocating would be flat wrong. It needs to simply be
>> brought back to its original intent. All the protection measures are
>> already in the law, always have been. We as a country simply need to
>> adhere to them and that unfortunately means enforcement of rules.
>
> It is still bringing in workers where there is no shortage.
>

Not when the min wage is $130k/year. Because that is way more than the 
company has to pay for an American worker. An employer would be quite 
stupid paying unnecessarily high wages.

>
>>>>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>>>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a
>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen
>>>>>> some.
>>>>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and most of
>>>>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>>>>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming
>>>>>> trade
>>>>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much
>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to
>>>>> mean. A
>>>>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
>>>>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements,
>>>>> then
>>>>> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't
>>>>> give
>>>>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and
>>>> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they
>>>> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this
>>>> resulted in
>>>> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded that
>>>> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design
>>>> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I
>>>> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)
>>>
>>> I don't know what companies you have worked for, but "gratification"
>>> comes from management.  They make the rules and if they reward marketing
>>> for doing lousy work, that's not marketing's fault.  We *all* respond to
>>> the stimulus and rewards we receive.  Engineering as well.
>>>
>>
>> Marketing is usually under the VP or Sales. Sales is traditionally
>> driven by commissions. Hence ...
>
> No, marketing is *not* "under" sales in any company I've worked for.
> Regardless, ultimate control over commissions and everything else in a
> company is by management.  They can create good, or create bad.
> Obviously not every company has the issues you mention, so there must be
> ways to solve the problem.
>

Most large companies I know are like that. They are marketing-driven 
which in essence results in a sales-driven company. The VP of Sales 
usually has the largest pull when it comes to deciding the direction of 
R&D. It is one of the reasons why I would not have remained an employee 
for very long. Because this can snuff out truly visionary developments. 
Those take a little longer and carry a higher risk. Most importantly for 
the sales force they do not generate instant commission income. Instant 
to a sales person usually means this year or even this coming quarter.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446950

On 2/8/2017 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-08 14:02, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/8/2017 11:18 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-07 17:33, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2017 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-02-06 16:36, rickman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/6/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>>>
>>>>>>> We need H1B and the law is already quite good as it is, always has
>>>>>>> been.
>>>>>>> The problem is a de-facto non-enforcement of the rules in this
>>>>>>> law. I
>>>>>>> have personally met people who were let go and then replaced by an
>>>>>>> H1B
>>>>>>> worker. This is wrong. So we need to get back to applying H1B the
>>>>>>> way it
>>>>>>> was always intended, obtaining talent which we truly cannot find in
>>>>>>> America or simply do not have enough of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My cousin was one of those people.  He literally trained his
>>>>>> replacement.  But he wouldn't report them.  In the end after six
>>>>>> months
>>>>>> or so they hired him back...  then laid him off again later on.
>>>>>> Then he
>>>>>> came back as a contractor getting paid much more.  You have to work
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> system to your benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He was lucky. Others weren't so lucky. Anyhow, with the new rules that
>>>>> will hopefully end soon.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall the details, but when I dug into the H-1B thing the vast
>>>> majority of visa holders worked for huge temp companies essentially and
>>>> they were not doing high level engineering work.  It was more like
>>>> IT or
>>>> similar level work.  Ask a company to pay them $130k a year will simply
>>>> kill the entire H-1B program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It will not. H1B allows us to hire that specialist from overseas
>>> elsewhere that brings fresh ideas into a project. It allows us to hire
>>> the brightest minds to keep America at the top of high-tech. That is
>>> what H1B was designed for.
>>
>> Except that is not what it is being used for.  The proposed changes will
>> eliminate abuse, but it does nothing to *encourage* proper use.
>>
>
> It's simple: A company needs a certain talent, tries their best
> domestically, can't find anyone.

See, right there... that's the fallacy.  Do you really think there is 
any skill that can't be supplied in the US?  What it means is they can't 
find the talent at a given wage.


> Then they go international, find
> someone, file for the visa and pay accordingly. This is proper use.
>
> Improper use is what happens nowadays. Companies hire scores of coders
> and others on the cheap, the whole program runs into the cap in a jiffy
> and when another company desperately needs someone in August they are
> screwed. Because the cap had been reached long ago.

So it comes down to price...  Company A was hiring H-1B workers on the 
cheap.  So there is no reason why there wouldn't be talent for company 
B... unless they expect to pay that same substandard wage.


> Therefore, the proposed changes setting a high minimum pay encourage
> proper use by curbing improper use. Most of all it will prevent
> companies from illegally displacing American workers.

The high minimum wage means the program won't be used because at that 
$120,000 an engineer will be found in the US... unless it's in one of 
the very few, very high priced regions like silicon valley.  I wouldn't 
move there no matter how much they pay.

In this country, at this time, if you can't find a skill, then you 
simply aren't offering the right incentives.


>>>> I believe you are addressing a problem that isn't really very big.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is big to all those people like your cousin because it messes with
>>> their making a living.
>>
>> My cousin was very happy.
>>
>
> He was lucky that he got back in. Most are not so lucky and have to join
> the ranks of the un- or underemployed.

That is simply not what I have read.  As I have said, an analysis I read 
(which included names of companies in the H-1B program and their 
numbers) showed most H-1B workers aren't really doing engineering.  They 
are doing much lower level jobs and being paid appropriately for them.


>>> H1B is a wonderful program and abolishing it like some short-sighted
>>> pundits are advocating would be flat wrong. It needs to simply be
>>> brought back to its original intent. All the protection measures are
>>> already in the law, always have been. We as a country simply need to
>>> adhere to them and that unfortunately means enforcement of rules.
>>
>> It is still bringing in workers where there is no shortage.
>>
>
> Not when the min wage is $130k/year. Because that is way more than the
> company has to pay for an American worker. An employer would be quite
> stupid paying unnecessarily high wages.

Yes, that is the point.


>>>>>>>> I know when I have worked in companies producing products for a
>>>>>>>> competitive marketplace, there was *lots* of interaction between
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> departments involved.  It would have been very hard to produce a
>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>> other than what was intended by the marketing group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marketing-driven businesses can be a problem though. I have seen
>>>>>>> some.
>>>>>>> Mostly because marketing folks often think too short term and
>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>> all in a reaction-mode. "Oh, we just saw the competition has an XYZ
>>>>>>> wombombulator function so we absolutely need that by this coming
>>>>>>> trade
>>>>>>> show". I am quite glad to not be exposed to this all that much
>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>> My current clients operate in true visionary mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Marketing driven" is a term that means just what you want it to
>>>>>> mean. A
>>>>>> company needs marketing and if the engineering department fails to
>>>>>> negotiate the requirements and/or fails to meet those requirements,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> where are they?  Customers will buy what they want and if you don't
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> it to them, you won't be designing anything in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I meant by that is what I saw a lot over my career: Sales and
>>>>> marketing folks are very much in an "instant gratification" mode, they
>>>>> do not think very long term. Engineers usually do. What this
>>>>> resulted in
>>>>> is that good engineering ideas withered because marketing demanded
>>>>> that
>>>>> 100% of the available manpower was spent on existing product design
>>>>> improvements. I know quite well how marketing folks think because I
>>>>> married my very first contact with a marketing department :-)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what companies you have worked for, but "gratification"
>>>> comes from management.  They make the rules and if they reward
>>>> marketing
>>>> for doing lousy work, that's not marketing's fault.  We *all*
>>>> respond to
>>>> the stimulus and rewards we receive.  Engineering as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Marketing is usually under the VP or Sales. Sales is traditionally
>>> driven by commissions. Hence ...
>>
>> No, marketing is *not* "under" sales in any company I've worked for.
>> Regardless, ultimate control over commissions and everything else in a
>> company is by management.  They can create good, or create bad.
>> Obviously not every company has the issues you mention, so there must be
>> ways to solve the problem.
>>
>
> Most large companies I know are like that. They are marketing-driven
> which in essence results in a sales-driven company. The VP of Sales
> usually has the largest pull when it comes to deciding the direction of
> R&D. It is one of the reasons why I would not have remained an employee
> for very long. Because this can snuff out truly visionary developments.
> Those take a little longer and carry a higher risk. Most importantly for
> the sales force they do not generate instant commission income. Instant
> to a sales person usually means this year or even this coming quarter.

Reality says otherwise.  If a company is so poorly run that the 
departments are working counter productively and yet they are highly 
profitable, then that contradicts what you are saying.  If they aren't 
highly profitable and could be run better, competitors will do that and 
eat their lunch.  Eventually the poorly performing companies either 
change or go away.

Companies do the things they do because it maximizes their profits.  If 
the scenario you describe results in high profits, then you are 
complaining about nothing.  You started by complaining about "instant 
gratification" and now you are talking about a year.  In the real world 
it is not at all uncommon for development to take much more than a year.

Look around, there are lots of products that took much more than a year 
to develop.  How long did the iPhone take to go from concept to product. 
  How about the chip sized atomic clock?  The list goes on.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web