Comment by tequila_shot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tequila_shot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why is this on the top of the hacker news? The article talks about nothing that will stop the abuse. There are indeed a lot of RFEs that are being given out if you don't have a CS degree and apply for a Software Developer position already.

The Pay structure that the article mentions is NOT true anymore. Take a look at the links[1], it's withdrawn and the rule is not valid.

How is hiring folks with a CS degree for an SWE position a solution to H1b abuse?

The rule published here specifically talks about three things(Yes, I read it line by line just so that I can do my due diligence before I comment here)[2]:

1/ Change the meaning of "Speciality Occupation" and tie this to the College degree that the person has.

2/ If you are part of these "body shops" and you are working as a contractor, your visa will only be extended for 1 year.

3/ Some general statements about Site Visits.

4/ No comment on increasing the wage.

The first child comment that we see below is an anecdotal evidence about seeing a house with dozen(?) folks in a 3 BHK flat? What does it do with H1B visa abuse? How is sending money home AFTER taxes H1B abuse?

Still debating how we went from thoroughly researched and thought provoking comments to these.

I don't debate that there is H1B abuse.

- Programmers are paid very less when compared to prevailing wage.

- Programmers cannot leave their employers so employers hold them by their balls and get work done overtime.

- Programmers stay away from their family, contribute to taxes AND to social security. KNOWING that they may never see a day to collect Social security.

All of this is H1B Abuse. There is no evidence that folks on H1B visa compete with a US Citizen's job. (I'm taking about H1B, not offshoring).

Literally NONE of the changes that this administration is doing is addressing ANY of these concerns for both the US Economy and the H1B individual. Comments like these are dangerous since they give an illusion that the administration is doing something to improve the economy, but they are just party tricks.

[1]https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=131148

[2]https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-22347.pdf

You’re talking about H1B abuse that primarily affects non-US citizens. I can sympathize (and I’m not a US citizen), but you can hardly expect the US press or hacker news to have that perspective or use that terminology... right?

More importantly, the US administration is not trying to solve H1B abuse from the perspective of non-US citizens.

Correct. It should prevent abuse both ways (for both US citizens and non US citizens). By making the system fairer, both US citizens and the world ends up benefiting, in addition to likely further helping the US economy.

Well... It still could, if “fair and honest dealings” is a political ideal you want to promote in the world. But sure, it’s not an administrations top priority, for understandable reasons.

Goal of my comment wasn't sympathy; but to get the facts out there that the current changes do nothing but to worsen the situation.(...not solving the H1B crisis)

Well raising the salary requirement should (long term) have a positive effect on all kinds of abuse, don’t you think?

can you state how the new changes would make it worse, and for whom?

I would expect people working alongside these visa recipients, and even the public at large, to have some idea of the system and the problems they face. (Although, for the general public, farm labor should probably figure larger).

And, yes, I do usually expect people to have the capacity to sympathise with others. I would even assert that everyone will instinctively want to help when they see others suffering. It's called empathy and is among the basic human emotions.

There is an ideological stream in the US that has seen the success of the market mechanisms based on competition and selfishness and is now misinterpreting it to mean than any form of altruism is bad.

Closely related is the glorification of competition to a degree where people are entire oblivious to the fact that a market economy is first and foremost a mechanism of cooperation. This has gone so far as to make even the notionally educated and self-styled rational tech community grasp around for speculative theories trying to frame this issue in terms of zero-sum competition. They somehow prefer to believe this against all evidence, i. e. the number of high-profile startups founded by first- or second-gen immigrants. And thereby give themselves license to do what it is they either actually want all by itself, or what they consider a proxy for good things happening to them: hurting others.

It's kinda fascinating and scary how easy it sometimes is in this country to grab a certain liberal group by the...whatever and even make them preachers of your political agenda.

Especially when there are just two sides.

Additional competition on the job market might be great for companies and maybe even a country in general, but it's bad for job seekers by definition - they have to compete with more people for jobs.

This has nothing to do with the US, it applies just as well to e.g. Europe.

Having an ability to feel superior - is a drug.

Ability to control other people's lives - is a drug.

And as usual the decades of "Americans jobs" crap. There are no American Jobs, as much as there are no NYC jobs or LA jobs. The employer doesn't own the job, only the power to be an intermediary.

Jobs are a function of market demand for products and services.

If tomorrow all of US territory became miraculously healthy and had no need for drugs - pharmacists' jobs would just disappear. No market - no jobs.

Surely it put downward pressure on everyone's wages.

>The Pay structure that the article mentions is NOT true anymore. Take a look at the links[1], it's withdrawn and the rule is not valid.

Is there any other independent confirmation that it was withdrawn? I can't find any. The PDF is still up.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/oflc/pdfs/DOL-Int...

I posted the link to rule: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=131148

You can correlate the RIN between the Rule and the PDF: RIN 1205-AC00

From what I understand withdrawing it was a procedural trick, see here: https://twitter.com/wstock215/status/1311824945752801281?ref... via https://redbus2us.com/h1b-perm-wage-levels-rule/

Also the rule does mention the new wage levels (eg. pages 147 and 148).

There were companies hiring people under H1B then finding them contract work. Something they are specifically limiting now because they were abusing the system by under paying them as well as hiring them after they get the visa instead of before.

No. It just means that the contractor should establish themselves with employer-employee relationship before finding work, from the rule PDF:

> First, striking “contractor” will avoid potential confusion as the term “contractor” in the definition is misleading. The inclusion of “contractors” in the regulatory language could be read to suggest that contractors should generally qualify under the definition of a “United States employer.” While a contractor is certainly not excluded from qualifying as a “United States employer” for purposes of an H-1B petition, the contractor, like any petitioner, must establish the requisite “employer-employee relationship” with the H-1B beneficiary.

> There is no evidence that folks on H1B visa compete with a US Citizen's job.

If an IT department puts out a req and fills it with an H1-B worker, a US worker is out of a job. It's really that simple. People like to respond to this and cite sources funded by H1-B consultancies about how H1-B create more economic opportunities which translates into more jobs for all but this doesn't make sense because companies will A) pocket the savings and B) continue to hire H1-Bs to keep on saving per headcount. The reality is that jobs are a zero-sum game. I welcome your response if you have a counter-point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com