Hi Lizzie, RE: "The flip side of all this, is that the supporters of H1-B say that this will force companies to offshore, because if they can't bring in cheap labor they will take the job out. My personal view is that isn't true, I am not worried about this, in fact H1-Bs actually lead to more offshoring in my view because workers come here, learn the ropes and then duplicate the effort in Bangalore."
Your conclusions are not only wrong, but frighteningly wrong because it works against this country's competitive health and wealth.
If you were in the loop on this particular issue, you would know that the limit of H1-B's, forced all of us in high-tech to go offshore. It's as simple as that. Trust me, I know (and I also know the motivations for many of the large companies on this matter too. Sure, some of the migration overseas is due to a need for a better understanding of foreign markets and a certain level of industry maturing (similar to the auto industry), but a huge part of it and most definitely the impetus is due to Congress' lack of quick response to us during the boom.)
Here's what happened:
It started with the boom.
For the high-tech industry, the boom is without an absolute doubt the impetus to blame. The boom screwed us all.
None of us could find enough top high-tech workers in the USA.
Lizzie, you know what hiring was like in 2000.
There were 10,000 more high-tech companies than just a second before the boom so suddenly we were all competing for the same tiny pool of people for TEN THOUSAND NEW COMPANIES out of the blue. (10,000 new companies is a huge number).
We all - small and large companies - had to move some of the operations offshore in order to find people, and the toppers. Some of the large companies tried to make due with what they could, but a startup could go under unless you have some key toppers at the ground floor of a startup. But suddenly there weren't enough people for 10,000 new companies.
Case in point: I think my startup is really, really good at recruiting top talent, but even we were forced to open an offshore division. We immediately recruited two toppers - one was the second best in the entire country and the other was a top ten. (In foreign countries, all students get ranked.)
But meanwhile, in the USA, I was interviewing with Stanford students who had competing job offers on the table and each day they told me about counter offers going up, up, up by $5k a pop a day. Fine, goodbye.
Lizzie, that is not a viable option for a business. Even during the boom we all had budgets and even outrageous budgets cannot afford such a daily salary creep. You must know that.
There simply was not enough talent to go around. Pure mathematics. Supply / demand. This is the honest to goodness truth - there simply was a huge demand issue. The problem was due to a lack of H1-Bs. Arg.
In 1999, it was reasonably easy to get Stanford students with Masters in CS/Eng, but in 2000 it was near impossible.
Since Congress responded way, way, way too slow (and I'm mad about that, because look at the mess this country is now in as a result of Congress' slowness), we all were literally forced to open offshore divisions to provide ourselves with immediate world-class top talent. I would rather have the world's top talent come to the USA and become permanent contributors, paying taxes, making this country a better place for you and me, making the USA more competitive, but none of the high-tech companies had any choice.
Congress was way, way too slow in responding. By the time they collected the data, the system was broke.
Congress's slowness to the boom, broke a pretty good system - where the toppers would come here to the USA where they brought their incredible talent & hardwork to the USA and stayed here permanently contributing their value. You incorrectly keep harping about H1-B's and contrary to your opinion, the fact is, H1-B's remain in the USA creating a permanent contribution and an emotional allegiance. It's the L1-B's that I'm concerned about, who are the problem (they come and displace IT American workers, and then they go back and bring in a new foreign replacement every few months, resulting in a displacement of American workers as well as creating a huge open door for IP theft, and worse of all, they don't stay and make this country better for you and me for whenever we eventually retire.)
So, for once and all, please understand that L1-B's are not good, while H1-B's are very good and needed.
The badness you see today, is due to a broken supply of H1-B's in 2000 (due to Congress' slowness!), that resulted in the creation of unethical L1-B abuses. I really wish you could understand this better.
It's ironic you bash H1-B's because it is exactly that attitude that created this entire, current problem in the first place, arg!
So, trust me on one thing - if Congress doesn't keep some appropriate level of H1-B's in this country, companies will indeed move offshore. That's a simple fact. It's very easy to do. Count the number of companies there are, and divide by the number of top PhD graduates in CS/Eng in specialty areas, and you'll realize there will always be a need for a certain number of H1-B's and if Congress blocks it, then we will be forced to move.
Because Congress was slow during the boom, they've ruined a good system. And that makes me upset at Congress, because when I retire in about thirty years, I want this country to be in good shape, not bad shape.
But to be in good shape, we need to continually attract the best talent in the world, not the other way around. Do you want to be forced to move to China or India in 30 years?
In 30 years, I want to be able to invest in USA companies, not be forced to move overseas to live because the USA has gone downhill. I'd also like to keep investing in USA companies too.
Lizzie, short-term pain is much, much better than long-term pain. I'd rather experience the pain today (when I'm young) then be forced to move to another country (when I'm old).
Regards,
Amy J |
