Donald Trump, zingers and all, emerges as sharp H-1B critic

It's one of several topics where neither party is really identified or associated with a position on it. It's going to be an election season like none we've ever seen, and like now we'll find ourselves in odd agreement with the last people we expect

Write up a job description that requires 10 years of experience in something that has only existed for 5 years (to use a brazen and obvious example), laden with "experience" requirements that eliminate the US labor pool from ever being "qualified" (that is, at the wage you want to pay, remember Americans also have student loan debt whereas a lot of immigrants' native countries fully fund their colleges and universities).

Call in a token American or two for an interview, deem them not qualified. Voila! "We can't find American workers, time to apply to bring over H1Bs, or contract out the work to someone who can."

If Trump wants to actually tighten up the requirements (and enforcement thereof) for what constitutes a bona fide search for qualified American workers, he could actually gain a lot of traction here (as could Bernie). I think we all know where Hillary stands.

Take the Disney fiasco. Disney didn't go out and "hire H-1Bs"; they decided to stop doing IT internally and hired a contracting company to do it. That contracting company is "H-1B reliant" (meaning more than 80% of its employees are H-1Bs) and so is subject to stricter hiring scrutiny when the visas are adjudicated but, pays a much lower prevailing wage than Disney did internally. So, they couldn't find qualified Americans at that price (but the price -- just barely -- met DoL's wage parameters in the area) and were allowed to hire H-1B workers for cheaper than the Americans because they weren't technically replacing those Americans (those were technically "new jobs".

On the other hand, unemployment in IT is very low (less than 4%), and there are currently about 110K unemployed American IT workers, as opposed to 600K H-1B employees in IT. If every single unemployed American IT worker took an H-1B's job tomorrow, there'd still be almost half a million H-1B workers in IT.

I believe that media coverage of H1B visas discourages natural born Americans from pursuing careers in IT.

Remember, we don't fund our colleges and universities--higher education is largely at the student's risk (via student loans). That is a departure from the norm of industrialized nations, as well as India and China.

So who the hell is going to risk 50-100k in student loans if they believe that some H1B is just going to come and take their job for half the pay? Especially if their family is unwilling and/or not wealthy enough to help out with college?

I know I was in this position when I graduated high school in 2003. I stayed away from computer programming, even though I had wanted to do it just a year earlier, because I feared outsourcing meant I wouldn't be able to find work in the field at a wage I could pay my student loans at even then. Yet corporations were screaming "shortage, shortage!" but I sure as hell don't see them lobbying for fully funding state universities to render student loans unnecessary (like they are in other industrialized nations). Sure, they'll lobby for better public schools, but not colleges.

Americans aren't on a level playing field, and some of that has to do with how our education is funded as well.

Back in the 90s you could just self-train and get an IT job; I guess that's not so much true anymore though it's still kind of the mindset I've had (come to think of it, most of the other people I know in IT don't have IT degrees, though).

I wasn't old enough to self-train when IT was still in its infancy, before employers could expect you to have a specific degree in it.

I graduated high school right about when outsourcing/H1B abuse/etc. started to become noticeable in the media, and determined that I would have to find another career because I feared that I'd have H1Bs hired over me for lower wages by the time I got out of college.

If that is at all representative of the thoughts of young people entering the college pipeline, that they believe "why go into computer science, the job will just go to an H1-B or L1 and I'll still have student loan debt anyway," that constriction of native born talent supply might go a long ways towards explaining that "shortage" that Silicon Valley keeps screaming about.

That's more than the civilian Federal workforce (though only one sixth of a big sector like manufacturing). (Also, now that I say that, I have no idea where the people doing IT for the Federal government fall in that distinction, just that the government has 2.5 million people working for it and IT has a little more than 2.5 million people in the sector.)

I don't know. I still tell high school kids it's a decent career path, though I advise them to try systems administration rather than programming. Programming is probably not a great career path in the US nowadays.

That "technical talent that american's don't have" was acquired in a US university.

It sure as hell wasn't the student taking out loans.

When I compare US funding of universities to other industrialized nations, that comparison includes funding of study abroad programs.

That don't have a lot of the same salaries, benefits (stock options, etc.) that we once had. I just had a contract job end after three months earlier this week, and am back looking for jobs for the second time this year after looking for jobs twice last year too.

When the immigration bill didn't pass that would have raised the H-1B quota, many companies still had staffing needs they couldn't fill with H-1B with the quotas filled, so I believe that many of them are hiring Americans as contractors for the time being until they can get another bill to expand the H-1B quota again, where they'll ditch us to get cheaper H-1B contractors from H-1B body shops later.

So I would contend that "low unemployment rate" is misleading now. It will go up again if they expand H-1B quotas.

H-1B program expansion along with TPP is another reason why we really want Bernie as the Democratic Party nominee if Trump wins the Republican nomination. The anti-TPP and anti H-1B vote that is rather synergistic, will take a lot of votes away from Hillary if she were to win instead of Bernie. Trump would need to beat Bernie on other issues to win the presidency instead of free trade and H-1B opposition.

Democratic voters are, nationwide, slightly in favor of the TPP, and Republican voters are, again slightly, against it, but the elected representatives in both parties are going against their bases in that sense. This may be a signal of a larger restructuring of our party coalitions.

There is no poll not sponsored by PR firms which has shown such a thing, so you can cut out the corporate flunky bull$hit.

Then again, this has already been pointed out to you several times in the past on these boards. Guess you thought you'd find some gullible fools out there who would believe you.

voters are not "slightly in favor of TPP"? Or that Democrats are not more supportive of TPP than republicans?



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Initial TPP Ballot (of Democrats only)
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%

SUPPORT 52%
OPPOSE 18%

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e2b1d1e4b043f1c9a2a9ed/t/55424db8e4b04641a244468d/1430408665168/trade-poll.pdf




https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ttjqflfkfd/econTabReport.pdf

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

No matter how many times you get called out, you shamlessly continue to spam these boards with pro-TPP PR firm generated phony polls. Flunky do, flunky say.

“Progressive” Coalition for Fast Track and TPP Appears from Nowhere

quite good at questioning the integrity of every polling organization that posts data that you do not agree with.

You don't just reject the polling results from one organization but from every one that dares post results that you don't agree with. Or perhaps you accept the validity of the polling results from the other 3 organizations I included in my post? Or are they all mindless polls "sponsored by PR firms" - based on the fact that you don't agree with the results.

BTW, acknowledging that most Democrats disagree on any issue does not make them right and you wrong. Polls only show opinions not facts.

You can acknowledge polling results that you don't agree with and not give up the position that you are right and people polled are wrong. I find that to be true with many things - most recently the nuclear agreement with Iran. Polls show that a majority do not support the deal. I acknowledge the fact that is the opinion of most people, but that does not make them right and me wrong.

only if there are no Americans qualified for the job what ever the price.

You're getting the top 5% of Indian comp sci students as opposed to going through the entire 100% of US comp sci students. And for that matter many of them went to school in the US anyways.

That's changing as wages in India rise and jobs in the subcontinent get more attractive to Indian grads, but the mindset is still there.

... and works in outsourced jobs in places like Bangalore closer to their families which now has replaced Silicon Valley as the world center with the most high tech employees. A lot of jobs are simply outsourced overseas rather than imported here through H-1B.

The bottom line is that the reason for H-1B visas and the outsourcing enabled by TPP and other "free trade" agreements, is cheaper labor so that the top 1%, execs, and stockholders can all get more of the money that would have been paid in domestic salaries, like many other industries here that are being outsourced.

A lot of them went to grad school here rather than getting their bachelor's degrees here, as their bachelor's degrees are subsidized in India, but they are able to just save to pay for a masters, etc. they get here to get more of an equivalent education to other American Masters degree students here, which are a very small number because most American students here can't afford to get both a bachelor's degree and a master's degree at today's school costs here, especially if the prospects in IT careers are that their jobs are going to be outsourced.

The system is rigged here against American workers, and the smart high school kids that are needed for IT professions here realize this and avoid them, and pursue something like law or medicine instead, even if they might be attracted to working in it otherwise.

The environment now is quite different than in the early 80's when the computer industry started, and high tech employees weren't even laid off much then, much less outsourced. They were treated quite differently and e were many American smart kids attracted to this field then. Unions weren't needed then in this industry and never really got started before the heavy move towards H-1B and outsourcing went forward and bypassed that from happening like it might have happened at a stage in other industries.

Nowadays, many IT folks realize that the system is rigged against them, and without labor organization, realize that the rules for programs corrupted against their interests like H-1B and Free Trade agreements need to be pushed aside or renegotiated by a new PTB in government if things are going to change, which is what will empower someone like Bernie Sanders, or perhaps even in a number of cases Donald Trump to get their votes, who's been speaking out against free trade and H-1B now like Bernie.

Because, as a former IT worker, anyone who is FOR H-1B visas is not getting my vote.

Construing this as my saying I would vote for Trump, by the way, is pure bullshit. Same bullshit if anyone conflates Bernie with Trump based on H-1B visa position. Plus, I believe Trump would go ahead and hire H-1B visas in a heartbeat. Lip service and pandering by Trump.

What about H-2s?

Just this year Disney is firing American workers and foreign H1B visa holders are replacing them because they are cheaper.

Many corporations are doing this. And it is corporations who are pushing for these programs to be expanded.

Working in IT, I have seen the "criteria" abused many many times. That "not sufficiently qualified" thing is blatantly and cynically and deliberately misused. No point in trying to box me in on this, really. Won't work. My experience is not anecdotal.

Can you elaborate?

But not really.

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/06/03/abuse-of-h1-b-visa-program-explains-a-lot-about-this-economy/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

not understanding it'

Upton Sinclair

within the company, and was perfectly qualified. My phone interview was great. My in person interview was great. In fact, I found out I had made it through the three stages - interview with supervisor, then he called his manager in, then manager's boss came in. Three hours. Glowing reviews next day from the supervisor, unsolicited, to friends who worked there, and with whom I had worked with at other companies.
Two days later - all were informed that they were hiring an H-1B worker. And then one of my friends had to train him in things I already had demonstrated that I know how to do.

Evidently my entire interview was just for legal purposes. Heard about the same tactics from colleagues. There is a clip floating around here that shows company HR reps being instructed on how to skirt the rules in place about that totally bogus directive to make sure there is no American citizen who is qualified.

You know, I doubt that displaced IT workers are some big voting bloc that must be catered or campaigned to. I would think it best to just accept that H-1B visas have adversely affected their ability to earn a decent living, and not try and marginalize their experiences or attempt to explain them away. That is very condescending and off-putting.

Also, I am not a one-issue voter, and expressing a desire to INCREASE H-1B visas is just one thing on my list of things I consider negatives.

Do we have reason to believe it's any better today?

so I'll just have to guess, based on what I know about him

focuses solely on (THEM) foreigners using walls, tariffs and cutting immigration. Our problems must all be the fault of foreigners, not our own 1%. Trump blames the former and empowers the latter. So did Coolidge and Hoover, not FDR.

Donald does not care, but modern social democracies have not achieved healthy middle classes, strong unions and world-class distributions of income by using walls, tariffs and limiting immigration. Of course, adopting the policies of modern social democracies (which are patterned after those of FDR) does not lend itself to bluster and and promoting an "US vs THEM" mentality.

As another DUer pointed out a month or so ago. The real damage may be not in the H1B program although there is likely some abuse in that program as well. But the bigger issue may be in the temporary L- series of visa's and a lack of regulation concerning their ability to seriously undercut the pay of workers here, by using employees paid in their home country.

this is a very serious question

sure, it's fair to question Trump's motivation for bringing it up

but, it's also fair to question this party's motivation for $ilence

I know people have been bringing the evidence of harm to the party for YEARS

but, why can't the party seem to understand it?

I think this is a discussion we need to have.

I'll even add that if I had to guess, I think he disagrees with me on this particular question.

i'd have to know what you think about it, to understand what that means

I think O'Malley wants to reduce them by about 50%.

But I want to make clear that he has not said anything definitive on that.

'But I want to make clear that he has not said anything definitive on that.'

why do you have a specific speculation about something he hasn't said?

(not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand where you're coming from)