Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447020
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: H-1B Reform |
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eg3gv7F14qlU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <o7dsdu$q8j$1@dont-email.me> <eg0ulaFfhucU1@mid.individual.net> <o7g4f1$ssf$1@dont-email.me> <eg1kqeFk79eU1@mid.individual.net> <o7gj27$c1n$1@dont-email.me> |
On 2017-02-08 18:12, rickman wrote: > 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? Yes. I don't only think so, I know so. > ... What it means is they can't find the talent at a given wage. > Not true. Sometimes you need someone who is intimately familiar with the regulatory system and habits in a foreign country for which a product is to be geared _and_ is fluent in that language. Then the number of available engineers for this job in the US can be zero. Other times you can find a local engineer but only by prying him or her out of another company. Then that company will have a serious problem at their hands. They can outbid themselves like sports teams sometimes do but in the end there will still not be enough talent available. Think about it this way: How will you win a race in a sports car if only two of the four wheels are available and there is no time to build two more? By mounting the front wheels in the back. Or vice versa? Or maybe diagonally? > >> 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. > Which they will have to do in order to stay competitive. Else company B's products will have higher NRE and you know the consequences of that. > >> 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... No. H1B is meant to get such an engineer if none or not enough can be found in the US. See above. And yes, then $130k or whatever the law says is not a problem. If it were then the need wouldn't truly be there. > ... 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. > I wouldn't either. > In this country, at this time, if you can't find a skill, then you > simply aren't offering the right incentives. > Now you are beginning to understand :-) > >>>>> 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 was never meant to be a simple guest worker program. It should not be used as such and now that practice will likely stop. Which is a good thing. > >>>> 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. > So they will soon make a stronger effort to find American engineers or programmers for the jobs. That is the real 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. > Reality is yet different. Many large companies have such a large sales footprint that it takes decades until your described scenario happens. Perfect example: The big three auto makers. Half a century ago they scoffed at Volkswagen, Toyota, and others. "Phhht, they don't even have a meaningful dealer network, forget it! And Americans don't want compact cars anyhow!". Yet foreign compnies made better compact cars. A few decades later they weren't laughing anymore, they were shaking in their boots and even had to be bailed out by our government. The effect is commonly called "resting on the laurels". > 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. > That's what I am saying. And this is difficult to achieve in a marketing-driven organization. They do not want to wait that long. > 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. > iPhone is not a new product. It is an evolved product. So is the atomic clock chip which is simply a glorified 60kHz receiver canned into silicon. A truly new product is, for example, a medical device that has no equivalent and where people were so far dying because of that lack. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web