JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' as Indian IT Giants May Accelerate Offshoring With Remote Delivery Already Proven at Scale (indiadispatch.com) 125
The US will charge companies $100,000 for each new H-1B visa starting February 2026 under Project Firewall. According to a new analysis, the fee exceeds average H-1B salaries at firms like TCS where engineers earn $105,000 annually. Previous visa costs ranged from $2,000 to $33,000. Indians hold an estimated 70% of H-1B visas. The fee eliminates five to six years of profit per engineer. Typical engineers deployed to American client sites generate $150,000 to $200,000 in annual billings at 10% operating margins, producing $15,000 to $20,000 in yearly profit. J.P. Morgan states the move "prices out the utility of H-1B as a source of labor supply." But it might not be bad for the IT giants.
Major Indian IT firms derive only 0.2% to 2.2% of their workforce from H-1B approvals after years of reducing visa dependence, according to India Dispatch. New approvals alone account for under 0.4% of headcount. Morgan Stanley estimates companies could offset 60% of the financial impact through increased offshoring and selective price increases. The net damage to operating profit would stay contained at around 50 basis points or a 3% to 4% hit to earnings spread across the renewal cycle. Companies plan to accelerate geographic arbitrage by routing more work to India, Canada, and Latin America. Firms can maintain their existing visa holder base while letting normal turnover occur over three to six years.
Major Indian IT firms derive only 0.2% to 2.2% of their workforce from H-1B approvals after years of reducing visa dependence, according to India Dispatch. New approvals alone account for under 0.4% of headcount. Morgan Stanley estimates companies could offset 60% of the financial impact through increased offshoring and selective price increases. The net damage to operating profit would stay contained at around 50 basis points or a 3% to 4% hit to earnings spread across the renewal cycle. Companies plan to accelerate geographic arbitrage by routing more work to India, Canada, and Latin America. Firms can maintain their existing visa holder base while letting normal turnover occur over three to six years.
Return to office (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was impossible for companies to handle their workers not sitting in their local office together with their team?
Will they suddenly find out how to do video calls when they have to pay a little fee?
Re:Return to office (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Return to office (Score:4)
What employers realised during the lockdowns is that the office building doesn't have to be in the same country, and they don't really need in-person contact or team building exercises/retreats. So offshoring it is.
Re:Return to office (Score:4, Informative)
Right, you're supposed to pretend to work at your desk, as God theirself intended.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Return to office (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they need employees to be in an office building is so they can have some kind of pit boss (usually an HR person sitting at a desk nearby) to make sure the employees aren't on a beach while pretending to work or having multiple jobs with multiple employers.
No doubt those things happen some of the time, but got any citations re: it being EXCLUSIVELY that? And not partially (or even largely) wanting control, for instance? OR at least partly being stubborn and unwilling to try different things?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't an employer be entitled to control if they want to?
Ultimately that is their right, but not treating their employees like children is definitely one of the things that sets apart good employers from shitty ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. They probably don't want to hear the Roosters crowing in the background when employees are working from home on a Teams call and figure that since livestock isn't allowed in the office they can avoid that type of interruption.
And no. This isn't a joke. I've had at least three calls like this from Xerox Support over the past 5 years when their support site would crash and I had to call them for toner and parts support. To be fair I always got the parts and support on time so Kudos on Xerox but its defini
Re: Return to office (Score:2)
They masters and 15/hr
Re:Return to office (Score:5, Insightful)
They will accept higher costs due to delays and the like with offshoring, if those costs are less than paying the visa fees.
They will abandon paying Americans to do some of the work, and outsource all of it.
The reason this kind of scheme doesn't work is because the costs are different for every company. Some will pay it, some will do more offshoring, and a small number will employ more Americans. The only question is what the proportions will be, and which option your employer chooses. Hope you are in the last group.
Re: (Score:2)
What a win for India and other offshore IT hubs!
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this kind of scheme doesn't work is because the costs are different for every company. Some will pay it, some will do more offshoring, and a small number will employ more Americans.
Nice hand wave there. That is called public policy, in a free society. Like you say it is about what the proportions will be. You don't know the policy won't achieve its goals, of employing more Americans in net, you are just assuming that part because you don't like the current leadership and not for any informed reason.
The real questions if this is more to little to late, and it might be. Even so trying something is better than doing more nothing. At the end of the day what difference does it make if y
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course the administration is looking at taxing some foreign employment as labor imports as well. So it is likely that this is one of a multiple prong approach to a broader protectionist strategy for American knowledge workers. I just hope the current bunch can stay in office long enough to implement it all.
That is the key point here. If one assumes this is a stand-alone policy they may be correct that it will fail, and in any case it may, but it is different than past policy which we know didn't work well for US labor. Further, this administration (whether one loves them or hates them,) is clearly using complex policy on almost every front. Again, I don't know if any of it will work and may not simply because of its cross-dependencies, but what we were doing before wasn't sustainable, so I'm game for a new
Re: (Score:2)
"That is called public policy, in a free society."
Is it called that? Or do you mean you are free to call it that in a free society.
Mass murder of Jews was called "public policy" in free German society, not sure what the merit of your claim is.
"You don't know the policy won't achieve its goals..."
Because we don't know the goals. What we do know is that people will lie about the goals and lie about the data.
"The real questions if this is more to little to late..."
No it's not, unless you're a brainwashed rac
Re:Return to office (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, it's always been a situation where I was remote, but within a few hours drive, save the trips overseas. The international travel was life changing. I came back a very different person having become cultured. American culture is just to monotonous to become cultured. I would rule out going to the UK as well if you're looking to become cultured. They're very much like Americans, except they talk with funny accents and drive on the wrong side of the road.
Regarding the UK, a few reason why it's the
Re: (Score:3)
Traditionally, people kept to the left side of the road, which was already the rule in Ancient Rome. In France, with coaches, carriages and riders keeping to the left, pedestrians started to walk on the right, so they could see oncoming traffic and step aside not to block the coaches and riders, which were mainly aristocracy. In the French Revolution, everyone was a ci
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for a company which outsourced a lot of work to an Indian company. Some of them were on our site (in a separate office, a couple of miles from where I was working then) and some more were in India. It worked by and large, and I only ever actually saw most of the "local" Indians two or three times over all the years I worked there.
As for people "working from home", that often meant they could not be reached at all, or the background noises made it clear they were walking the dog.
Re:Return to office (Score:4, Insightful)
Fairly obviously, this almost certainly won't result in many thousands of H1-Bs each paying $100k to the US government each year; it'll result in many thousands of jobs that would have been paying US taxes on their wages, and then paying for accommodation, a car, for leisure, and whatever else into the US economy paying their taxes and spending their wages in wherever the new (or expanded overseas) office is instead.
Smart countries will be making setting up offices and bringing those outsourced workers in much easier right now, but I'd also expect some buildings in India are going to see their "Tata Consulting" logo get one from Amazon, Microsoft or whoever alongside it too.
Re: (Score:3)
Fairly obviously, this almost certainly won't result in many thousands of H1-Bs each paying $100k to the US government each year; it'll result in many thousands of jobs that would have been paying US taxes on their wages, and then paying for accommodation, a car, for leisure, and whatever else into the US economy paying their taxes and spending their wages in wherever the new (or expanded overseas) office is instead.
Yep. Google, at least, started this transition during Trump1.
The company has long had engineering sites in various other countries, but until Trump1, the primary focus was always on cities where Google thought the global talent would want to live. Low cost was clearly not the driving factor in the selection of London, Zurich, Munich, Tokyo and Sydney, to name a few of the ones I visited. US sites were similarly not located in low-rent areas. The workforce was definitely global, because Google wanted to
Re:Return to office (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if you assume full RTO (which won't happen), at $100,000 per H1-B, you're only going to need a reasonably low number of people in the team to setup a remote office for the entire team and ship a manager out there to oversee them - or just outsource that role too.
Fairly obviously, this almost certainly won't result in many thousands of H1-Bs each paying $100k to the US government each year; it'll result in many thousands of jobs that would have been paying US taxes on their wages, and then paying for accommodation, a car, for leisure, and whatever else into the US economy paying their taxes and spending their wages in wherever the new (or expanded overseas) office is instead.
Smart countries will be making setting up offices and bringing those outsourced workers in much easier right now, but I'd also expect some buildings in India are going to see their "Tata Consulting" logo get one from Amazon, Microsoft or whoever alongside it too.
You're assuming the next step here isn't punitive changes in tax or monopoly law to punish offshoring. All the executive has to do is threaten convincingly that it's in these tech companies best interest to bring jobs back to the US, or they'll find themselves on the wrong end of a whole lot of executive action. Whether it's from Trump or the next populist, the threat of having your tech monopoly broken up would be existential. Until recently the large corporate players thought they were invincible, but Trump has shown that it's really just norms and popular sentiment that enabled them to gut the US workforce in favor of cheap overseas labor. Those norms are shattered, and popular sentiment in the US was turning against globalism even before Trump.
If I were in charge of these corporations I'd read the writing on the wall and begin onshoring with US native workers as a hedge. Tech giants have gotten too comfortable with the idea they can outmaneuver any consequences of US policy with lawyers and clever logistics, but the reality is they're extremely vulnerable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about being charge is that the person also thinks they are in control. If push comes to shove, Microsoft will re-home in another country and tell the USA to fuck off. All of the huge companies will do this. They do not NEED to be in the USA. They started here and have an advantage here, but once that advantage is gone, so are they.
As Princess Leia said, the tighter you grip these star systems, the faster they will slip through your fingers.
Princess Leia Organa: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Trump and the fascists behind him should keep this in mind
Re: (Score:2)
H1-B, you're only going to need a reasonably low number of people in the team to setup a remote office for the entire team
This is why we should make sure Offshore work performed for a US company by contract employees has to be legally classed as US source income - offshored services, and establish a tariff rate per hour on that higher than the H1B visa costs.
Import Duty on transferring the work performed in a foreign office into a US company.
Re: (Score:3)
The large companies will just move ALL their jobs to be in local offices... in India. Problem solved. These policies are creating an economic motivation to offshore that wasn't previous there. It may be that the net number of Americans employed will go down despite "less competition from foreigners".
Re:Return to office (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo.
Those Indian staffing firms are basically giant scam companies. They only hire foreign nationals, who happen to be... mostly indian. Gee, wonder WHY that is.
Those companies should not exist, at all. They're basically outsourcing firms that hire the cheapest, most incompetent people and have them work for companies who want to pay the cheapest prices for jobs that should probably just be automated.
So, while I think the 100K price is absurd, I think the requirement must be for the wage to be paid to be 500% of the housing cost (so if a San Francisco company wants to hire a H1B, the prevailing median housing cost is 1.4m, which means that a housing payment is $9500/mo, which means $47,500/mo.) So that would discourage the hiring of H1B's to displace people who already live in expensive areas, and instead push companies that want to hire H1B's to move their companies into under--developed areas and get those areas to have a higher quality of life. Or those areas can push back and refuse to let them in. If they're hiring people who can't freaking afford to live there anyway, they shouldn't be able to hire them at all.
Where do Indian firms offshore to? (Score:4, Funny)
North Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the really basic work my team did got moved to malaysia. Didn't really affect me because it was really basic stuff but it was literally teenagers. I remember one of the girls telling me it was great because it beat the hell out of doing sex work.
Folks don't realize how completely fucked the rest of the world is. 150+ years of colonialism has really wrecked large parts of the world. I'm actually surprised nobody has moved in on Haiti for outsourc
JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The current model prices out US IT workers.
No, it doesn't.
Oh well, I turn 70 on Saturday and I figure to have my last remaining business client migrated to a new provider by the end of the year.
I'm glad you got to damage the system before you left it.
Re: (Score:3)
"damage the system" Not sure what damage being an independent contractor for over 35+ years did.
Re: JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One firm does not discount the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
I don't think anyone denies this. [ucdavis.edu]
The indentured servitude factor is critical to understanding the problems with the system.
Trying to sus out some conspiracy to lower wages will lead you to always losing your fight, because it's not real., and even your first link says the offices they looked at often had an increase in wages for the non-H1Bs.
Re: JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I am going to push against any suggestion that anecdotal cases of malfeasance represent a corrupt system.
The folks who measure pay disparities between black people and white people, men and women, cannot find any evidence of systemic underpayment of H1-Bs.
In order to make the data look like that, you have to start comparing apples to oranges. Those who are vociferously against the program are happy to do so.
Having worke
Re: (Score:2)
Have any evidence to back up this rather bold claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Congratulations on retiring. What do you plan on doing?
Re: JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' (Score:2)
Slashdot comments. So many slashdot comments.
The H1B's are the facilitators for offshore (Score:5, Interesting)
Those multiple layers allowed them to jack up the charges, insist they needed more contractors on each project, and hide the quality of the contractors we were given. I was extremely confident we were getting very low quality engineers with barely any experience and the majority of the actual work was being done by that offshore lead. Unfortunately we were being driven to push more and more work to contractors at that time until it all blew up and they reversed course bringing everything back in house.
We do have an offshore captive presence today but they are all full time employees now, not contractors. We also have better alignment where my quality of life isn't suffering because of having to do early AM and late PM calls with offshore.
Jacking up the price of H1B's will impact that onshore/offshore contracting lead model which will make the costs less desirable to companies and potentially removing their ability to field the onshore leads who mask what is really happening offshore.
I think for any company that truly is using H1B's to bring in talented workers who they want to employ it will encourage them to sponsor green card applications with a higher frequency rather than using the H1B model to keep workers as indentured servants. I'm good with that because someone coming in on a green card has the option to compete in the market and receive market rates. It may even cause companies to consider going back to hiring local talent and *gasp* actually doing career development.
Re:The H1B's are the facilitators for offshore (Score:4, Insightful)
It may even cause companies to consider going back to hiring local talent and *gasp* actually doing career development.
One can only hope.
Re: (Score:2)
I think for any company that truly is using H1B's to bring in talented workers who they want to employ it will encourage them to sponsor green card applications with a higher frequency rather than using the H1B model to keep workers as indentured servants. I'm good with that because someone coming in on a green card has the option to compete in the market and receive market rates. It may even cause companies to consider going back to hiring local talent and *gasp* actually doing career development.
The problem I see is unless there is a fast track green card process it will take a lot longer to get them onboard. One change I'd make is let the H1-B holder be able to transfer it to a new employer after a year without enalty. That would make companies be a lot more selective and likely raise wages to the point US workers are competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
One change I'd make is let the H1-B holder be able to transfer it to a new employer after a year without enalty.
There is nothing stopping a second employer sponsoring a new H1B for someone who just entered the country on an H1B. No penalty today.
What does tend to stop H1B visa holders from transferring to a new employer are contracts that require the employee to repay moving and other costs: sometimes, somewhat inflated costs.
Re: (Score:2)
One change I'd make is let the H1-B holder be able to transfer it to a new employer after a year without enalty.
There is nothing stopping a second employer sponsoring a new H1B for someone who just entered the country on an H1B. No penalty today.
What does tend to stop H1B visa holders from transferring to a new employer are contracts that require the employee to repay moving and other costs: sometimes, somewhat inflated costs.
Which should be outlawed to prevent such limits to transferring, that was teh sort of penalties I was referring to as well. If teh H1B truly has very difficult to find skills let them come in and compete at true free market rates once sponsored; a year would be the time for calculating ROI.
Where is the break point? (Score:4, Insightful)
They say it will price them out, but that depends on the break point. The reason they like H-1Bs is they can get workers who will work for less and work more hours because they are trapped in the H-1B structure and are terrified to lose their job, because then they will be deported. So if they truly make $15-20k in profit for the company, will changing to a US based worker who likely will want a higher salary and not work crazy hours be worth it? My guess is they just lock in the H-1Bs for more years and pay them less to keep their profits up. Or they try outsourcing straight to India again and skip bringing them to the US at all.
Re: (Score:3)
You are, however, correct that the stipulations that come with an H1-B that lead to revoking the Visa is akin to indentured servitude.
Ultimately- pricing out the imported help is not going to change the fact that the US doesn't have what companies need. They're just going to outsource it.
Less is more (Score:2)
And to repeat an idea: It shouldn't be a fixed "fee" but rather a multiplier that's connected to the average American salary, or similar. That way, it never needs to be politically revisited.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I read it, the 100k fee is an "investment" in bringing someone over.
You pay it when you get someone in, and it gets recovered over the 3 years that the H-1B is active. Don't know if you have to then fork over another 100k, or if the +3 rollover is covered under the original 100k. After 6 years, presumably the applicant is well on their way to applying for permanent residency, or they've had enough of living in the US and want to go home.
If amortized over 3 years, that's 34k/yr, if over 6 years, th
Re: (Score:2)
That article is chock full of bullshit promulgated by right-wing organizations. But I'll quote one thing from it (note the lack of connection to H1B visas):
"That's where the true scam is and the real money is at," our source explained. "These people, recent IT grads, will do almost anything to stay in the US and work an IT job. The visa scam is small potatoes compared to what happens to the losers.
"They are offered jobs paying fractions of a dollar, to live with six people in a one bedroom apartment to manage costs. These people number in the thousands each year, compounded over decades."
"Their job is to impersonate a green card holder or US citizen to receive 30 percent of the pay," with 70 percent going to the people organizing the fraud, our source continued. "Why? Because itâ(TM)s still more money than their family back home could dream about.
I believe that there is some fraud in the H1B system, but a lot less than other people would have you believe.
Impacts on India (Score:4, Informative)
If this Trump directive goes through (and it's not clear that this isn't yet another TACO move), there are several significant impacts due India.
First, Indians in the US send around $35 billion in remittances to India. That's enough to be a few percentage points of the entire Indian GDP.
Second, the possibility of being sent to the US on an H1B is an enticement for Indian workers in the Indian contracting companies. If work gets send to India as a replacement for importing H1B workers, does that impact the quality of workers that the Indian contracting companies can attract? We're talking about 60,000 Indians sent to the US every year. That's not a small chance of being able to immigrate to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about 60,000 Indians sent to the US every year. That's not a small chance of being able to immigrate to the US.
60,000 is a raw number. It has no context.
I'll give you some.
1,451,000,000.
Yes, that's a microscopic chance of being able to immigrate to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about 60,000 Indians sent to the US every year. That's not a small chance of being able to immigrate to the US.
60,000 is a raw number. It has no context.
I'll give you some.
1,451,000,000.
Yes, that's a microscopic chance of being able to immigrate to the US.
That's the wrong denominator. There are 3-4 million IT workers in the Indian contracting companies, and not all of them are the technical workers that would be considered for an H1B. 60,000 out of 3-4 million is a pretty good chance. That's like a 1 out 50 chance of getting to immigrate to the US with your family, and you get that chance every year. After 10 years, that's around a 20% chance of being selected, and if you're politically savvy in the company, the chances are much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the wrong denominator.
That depends on what we're measuring.
There are 3-4 million IT workers in the Indian contracting companies
Ya, we can use those as the denominator if you prefer.
and not all of them are the technical workers that would be considered for an H1B. 60,000 out of 3-4 million is a pretty good chance.
No, it's not. If you tried every single year for your entire working life, there's still a 25% chance you wouldn't make it.
If you tried for just 20 years, there's a 66% chance you wouldn't make it.
That's like a 1 out 50 chance of getting to immigrate to the US with your family, and you get that chance every year.
See above.
Aside from all this, "in the Indian contracting companies" is a ridiculous criteria that shaves between 50%-60% off of the real denominator, which is just Indian IT workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from all this, "in the Indian contracting companies" is a ridiculous criteria that shaves between 50%-60% off of the real denominator, which is just Indian IT workers.
My original point was that some Indian IT folks will join the Indian contracting companies in order to have a chance to immigrate to the US. If that chance falls from 2% per year to 0%, then some of those workers won't bother to join the contracting companies, and as a result, the overall quality of IT workers at those companies will decrease. They will still join other Indian companies but less so the companies that were sending workers to the US via the H1B visa.
Global (Score:2)
We are a GLOBAL economy that is based on information. Call it Post Industrial. Information moves at the speed of light.
Pretending we Americans live in a giant castle surrounded by a huge Moat (aka Oceans) isn't going to protect us from what is happening elsewhere. Offshoring is going to kill our economy.
We have a dying generation who still sees the economy as post WWII, because that is the world we grew up in (Last of the boomers here).
We had better get used to it. Build things better, faster, cheaper.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus, the U.S. cannot produce all that it needs, manufacturing-wise. And the U.S. does not have enough people to even bother trying. Except that la Presidenta seems hell bent on trying no matter what the bad consequences. He thinks he can sell anything. So he's axing all the gov. reporting mechanisms that can report bad outcomes. And he's constantly uttering stupid things about how great the economy is.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, the U.S. cannot produce all that it needs, manufacturing-wise. And the U.S. does not have enough people to even bother trying.
Lot of stupid comments coming out of the peanut gallery, today.
The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world.
On a per-capita basis, it's the largest by an overwhelming amount.
If the US doubled its manufacturing workforce, it would be manufacturing 400% more than China.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why all the talk about bringing manufacturing back? Eh peanut gallery?
Re: (Score:2)
The economy is based on confidence. If people are worried about the security of their employment, they will spend less. Therefore it's the job of the president to ensure citizens that the economy is great, even when it's not. I'm not a fan of the way he's burying the stats, but he does bring confidence to the markets, even when it's undeserved. Whether you love him or hate him, when it comes to the economy many people will agree
Re: (Score:2)
We also know information obeys the laws of entropy. fundamentally it wants to be defuse.
We do not live in an economy based on information. We live in an economy based on secrecy and superior knowledge and technical capabilities. It worked great back in the 60s when the Chinese did not have the technology to do a lot of precision manufacturing at scale.
We got cherry pick the high value, low input cost commercial activities - a science and tech dividend. They have caught up now, partly because we believed
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not live in an economy based on information. We live in an economy based on secrecy and superior knowledge and technical capabilities."
Yes, an information economy. Perhaps you should ask google what that means.
Re: (Score:3)
I know exactly what it means thank you very much.
Literally everyone who ever used the term before this thread, was thinking about the 'production' of information when they said information economy. We were going to pay all these knowledge workers to sit and analyze data to produce information on demand. That is what they meant by information economy! Except nobody is going to need that in the very near future there will be relatively few questions big-data and machine learning can't answer, at least not t
Re: (Score:2)
"We have a dying generation who still sees the economy as post WWII, because that is the world we grew up in (Last of the boomers here)."
The constant agism is tiring. GenXers as a group are as entitled as Boomers are and Gen X isn't dying any time soon, post-Reagan internet boomers drive greed now, not post-WW2 boomers. Older people are more concerned with fixed incomes and retirement, older people are naturally more conservative.
If companies are bringing people over (Score:2)
Just like it didn't work with Hitler appeasement doesn't work with your boss or with mega corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
if you said at a lower salary than what an american would make, I'd agree. It was never about talent and always about lower wages
Re: (Score:2)
H1-Bs are not paid less than Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
There are major problems with the H1-B program. Depressing wages isn't one of them.
That's just some shit that over-educated and under-skilled dumbshits tell themselves to help them cope.
Re: If companies are bringing people over (Score:2)
Almost all H1Bs are indeed paid significantly less than US Citizen equivalents.
Some examples:
https://www.epi.org/press/new-... [epi.org]
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
https://www.bloomberg.com/grap... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all H1Bs are indeed paid significantly less than US Citizen equivalents.
No*.
First link:
That is illegal. A case of malfeasance does not say anything to the overwhelmingly legal use of the program.
Second link:
A lawsuit is not evidence.
Third link:
This is an article about contracting firm H1-B use.
It in itself specifies no wrongdoing whatsoever (or lower payment)
Try again.
In the meantime,
Some reading for you. [americanim...ouncil.org]
* There are certain metrics of "equivalent" that can (and have) been used to draw a disparity, but they are inherently flawed.
They generally use metrics like "a
Re: If companies are bringing people over (Score:2)
Your link to an advocacy group report counts registrations, not real jobs, and the numbers are as padded as an overstuffed junk resume. The links above actually have quantifiable metrics and specific examples of hundreds of thousands of jobs in recent years where wage abuse was directly alleged, or admitted, as a result of the H1B program.
You can say that it is illegal all day long and be true. When you say it does not happen, you become a liar. When you cite misinformation, you become a zealot.
Re: (Score:2)
Your link to an advocacy group report counts registrations, not real jobs, and the numbers are as padded as an overstuffed junk resume. The
For one part of it, yes.
The part that shows that unemployment and wages do not drop with increase H1-B employment obviously do not.
The links above actually have quantifiable metrics and specific examples of hundreds of thousands of jobs in recent years where wage abuse was directly alleged, or admitted, as a result of the H1B program.
What kind of stupid gaslighting shit is this?
Link 1 is an example of a company breaking the law. They literally do not matter here. That's a discussion about enforcement.
Link 2 is an example of a lawsuit, which means you've parroted unsubstantiated claims and called them evidence.
Link 3 literally does not say a single thing supporting your argument.
Get fucked, gaslighting
Re: If companies are bringing people over (Score:2)
Your willful ignorance of the documented abuses is an actual example of gaslighting. Someone calling you out because you push misinformation is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Provide one that backs up your assertion.
You can't call out someone for "pushing misinformation" when you respond to it with links that don't support your fucking argument.
Here's another one from me, though. [aier.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Pop quiz.
Supply meet demand.
If h1b visa holders add to the supply the demand side (our pay rate) stays the same or goes lower.
When we as a group say hey we need a raise, they reply, we need more h1b visas.
Re: (Score:2)
Pop quiz.
Oooh, this should be interesting!
Supply meet demand.
Indeed.
If h1b visa holders add to the supply the demand side (our pay rate) stays the same or goes lower.
Ah, yes. For that exact reason, every child that graduates from college reduces our earning potential!
Wait- they don't?
Next you'll try to tell me that the economy grows.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because they need them here.
*Want.
They WANT to have labor they can underpay, they damn well don't NEED it.
Stop falling for this trap; these comapneis WANT to do this kind of shenanigannery, they don't necessarily HAVE to.
I hope the EU does the same (Score:3)
Maybe one day soon I won't have to listen to crap support I have no idea what they talk about due to an impossible accent to understand.
You are all missing the point (Score:2, Informative)
" (c) The restriction imposed pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to any individual alien, all aliens working for a company, or all aliens working in an industry, if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in the Secretaryâ(TM)s discretion, that the hiring of such aliens to be employed as H-1B specialty occupation workers is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States."
Contribute to Trump or promote Trump a
Indentured service? (Score:3)
Are there protections in place in either country to prevent the Indian company from simply requiring the employee to take out a loan with the company for $100,000 with a ridiculous interest rate? The Indian company won't eat the $100,000, the American company won't want to pay the increase, so the "successful" arrangement is making the employee eat it. :-(
It's not just IT workers. (Score:3)
Lots of medical workers, especially in rural hospitals, are on H1-Bs.
JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' (Score:5, Insightful)
JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B'
That's the point, right? Companies aren't supposed to bring in workers on H1Bs because they're cheaper than their local counterparts, they're supposed to bring in H1Bs because there _isn't anyone_ they can hire locally. That $100k fee will sort the difference right quick.
Personally I'm against H1Bs period. If you have skills we should be offering you a green card, not a visa that's as close to indentured servitude as we can legally make it. But short of revamping the immigration system to be more welcoming to high-skill immigrants, there's a logic to the $100k fee to make the H1B work as designed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, mind you, it is completely improper for the President to have set this requirement and it's likely the courts will strike it down. The power to set visa requirements resides with the Congress.
only 10-15 years too late (Score:2)
I'm not sure this is enough to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Companies are always willing to cut corners on quality if they can make a buck or two.
100k h1b (Score:2)
No shit (Score:2)
No shit, dumbass. That is the entire point. There are plenty of people in the US that are already citizens that can do the jobs that most of these H1B workers are hired for. Corporations like J.P. Morgan just don't want to pay the going rate for some uppity American that isn't beholden to them and their sponsorship to stay in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
American companies, once proud of being red white and blue and boasting how many jobs they were creating, are now “global companies” that celebrate headcount reduction in the US..
When shoud that have been? I am in the field since about 30 years, and I can't remember those alleged days.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are all "second-job" jobs, jobs you take because your primary job isn't bringing home enough cured pig; so they aren't going to do much for the American worker except keep him/her from pulling out the pitchforks and the torches. And as you mentioned, el Bunko needs those for his resorts and other crap he's into.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you think.. but AI makes coding so easy in management's eye that they can create temporary seasonal coding positions for the winter each year - bring on a bunch of Desk Clerks. Add AI usage and basic coding to the job skills equirements, and stick them in the coding positions.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not read Eisenhower the quote at the bottom of your post? If you force an increase in the cost of restaurant service and hotels .. that will lead to a shrinking of the economy .. fewer restaurants and hotels. Fewer jobs. Always think in terms of how something can increase supply.
Re: Let's do H-2B visas next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This. I feel pretty confident this is one of those things the Administration loudly declares but then does not follow through on. The policy has been declared loudly...on a weekend. So it will stick in their political bases minds as "fe de complet " But right away there was the typical administration back-tracking, providing conflicting details as key stakeholders start asking WTF type questions.
This 'policy' is full of many ways around this fee. I see this as ending up a negotiating lever with India
Trump will definitely follow through on it (Score:2)
He will not use this to force companies to only hire people that are genuinely irreplaceable.
He will use this to make threats and solicit bribes. It's there so he can punish anyone who disobeys him.
We have been giving the president power for decades because newt Gingrich and the Republican party started to block basically all legislation. They called it the contract with America and anything and everything that benefits anyone but mega corporations and billionair
Re: (Score:2)
Great point. This administration LOVES THE GRIFT. As long as you're willing to slide a few million to the serial child rapist, you'll get as many H1B visas as you desire.