Posted on 10/29/2005 7:25:40 AM PDT by vrwc0915
It appears there is hard evidence to prove that employers are using the H-1B visa program to hire cheap labor; that is, to pay lower wages than the national average for programming jobs.
According to “The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers — F.Y. 2004,” a report by Programmers Guild board member John Miano, non-U.S. citizens working in the United States on an H-1B visa are paid “significantly less than their American counterparts.” How much less? “On average, applications for H-1B workers in computer occupations were for wages $13,000 less than Americans in the same occupation and state.”
Miano based his report on OES (Occupational Employment Statistics) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which estimates wages for the entire country by state and metropolitan area. The report’s H-1B wage data came from the U.S. Department of Labor’s H-1B disclosure Web site.
Miano went out of his way to be balanced, and whenever possible he gave the benefit of the doubt to the employer. For example, he used OES data from 2003 because this is the wage information that would have been available to the employers when filing an LCA (labor condition application).
Miano had some difficulty matching OES job codes with LCA job titles, which employers typically create. Where both the OES and the LCA listed a job as “programmer/analyst,” Miano took the conservative approach of assuming that the LCA was describing a programmer, a job title that typically earns a lower wage than a systems analyst.
Nonetheless, Miano’s report shows that wages paid to H-1B workers in computer programming occupations had a mean salary of $52,312, while the OES mean was $67,700; a difference of $15,388. The report also lists the OES median salary as $65,003, or $12,691 higher than the H-1B median.
When you look at computer job titles by state, California has one of the biggest differentials between OES salaries and H-1B salaries. The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573.
Here are some other interesting national wage comparisons: The mean salary of an H-1B computer scientist is $78,169, versus $90,146 according to the OES. For an H-1B network analyst, the mean salary is $55,358, versus the OES mean salary of $64,799. And for the title “system administrator,” there was a $17,478 difference in salary between the H-1B mean and the OES mean.
H-1B visa workers were also concentrated at the bottom end of the wage scale, with the majority of H-1B visa workers in the 10-24 percentile range. “That means the largest concentration of H-1B workers make less than [the] highest 75 percent of the U.S. wage earners,” the report notes.
While it would be difficult to prove that any one particular employer is hiring foreign workers to pay less, the statistics show us that, for whatever reason, this is exactly what is happening on a nationwide basis. Miano says lobbyists will admit that a small number of companies are abusing the H-1B program, but what he has found in this research is that almost everyone is abusing it.
“Abuse is by far more common than legitimate use,” he says.
What a fantastic generalization... is it cause or effect they do not want to do this "hard work"?
I wouldn't want to bust my ass for 40k a year as a senior programmer, working 60+ hours a week, does that make me lazy or stupid or both? Does it make any difference how much money a company earns or saves from a programmer's efforts or is it always about saving $20k annually per employee?
I've had the "privilege" of working with H1-B and offshore "programmers" and I can tell you they have been woefully under skilled and lack the independent drive of their US counterparts. They lack imagination and have no commitment or loyalty to the contracting company. Add to that the piss poor abilities of management to understand how to manage remote groups or identify under skilled developers and the net productivity loss is astounding.
When they move to the next contract you risk losing your intellectual capital to a competitor because they normally stay within the same business domain and can command a higher salary from knowledge gained at your expense.
Corporations are about to learn a powerful lesson, "you get what you pay for".
Going cheap is really just deferring costs at the expense of productivity and inventiveness throughout the development life cycle. But what the hell, they are getting their bonuses now and will be gone in a few years anyway and will not have to deal with the ramifications of their actions. They got the money and it's getting close to time to run.
I will say this, conservatism is not all good and socialism is not all bad.
If you notice all the leading socialist proponents of this country are CAPITALISTS.
Robert Owen the father of socialism made his fortune from child labor and then AFTER making his fortune, formed socialism. Marx was just a Johnny come lately with socialism.
And, what specifically is wrong with this? Don't employment agencies that place American workers do the same? Doesn't any middleman --- selling groceries, paper, steel -- do the same thing?
What other basic features of capitalism and the ability of people to be paid for their labor do you hate?
It's more than talk, Kennedy and Specter have already rammed it through the Judiciary Committee without any hearings or debate. If the scam is to be stopped it'll have to be by the House when they reconcile their two bills. We'll be watching to see if that happens.
So asking the gub'er'mint for permission to bring in a foreigner vs. raising rates to attract some qualified is a conservative thing?
You are correct about speaking figuratively.
This country has always been run with a degree of socialism right from the founding of the colonies.
During the colonial period there were many different monopolies granted by the crown.
Our first major roads were private turnpikes. Monopolies granted by the legislatures.
Early railroads received free land, from the government, for a distance on either side of their trackage.
Our agriculture industry for many years has been based mainly on socialism. How else do you explain government price supports?
Your electricity comes from a monopoly granted by the state. What do your electric rates have to do with supply and demand? The same can be said for water, sewer, and trash pickup in built-up areas.
You probably live with more socialism on a day-to-day basis than you do pure capitalism. I don't approve of this, its just a statement of fact.
Presidents have nothing to do with the economy???? You are obviously too young to remember the Jimmy Carter days.
A couple of months back I saw a piece on the "Washington Times", hardly a liberal rag, that didn't get much play.
From 1999 to 2003 the median wage of the bottom 80% of the population dropped 4% in real terms.
So, during a period when the US economy, as a whole, continued to grow at a healthy clip year after year, the bulk of the population actually saw their standard of living decrease.
I can't believe that, in the long run, turning our middle-class into lumpenproletariat serfs is a good thing.
As a side light...I saw yesterday where leaders in South Africa were DEMANDING that they be allowed to EXPORT labor to other countries. That sounds too good an offer for American companies to turn down.
As a side light...I saw yesterday where leaders in South Africa were DEMANDING that they be allowed to EXPORT labor to other countries. That sounds too good an offer for American companies to turn down.
RM: What a fantastic generalization... is it cause or effect they do not want to do this "hard work"?
A very legitimate question, but the answer to it is well-known: just count how many domestic students in this country go for "hard" majors like mathematics, physics, engineering other than computer science. That is what I was referring to. It's too hard to get that major when one does not know how to count or read well after high school. It's also hard in the present-day, immediate-gratification culture to forgo practically any income and incur a lot of debt when pursuing a Ph.D. program. Foreigners are glad to do that and will hiss your behind for the opportunity. When in need of a Ph.D. to teach a business administration, physics or mathematics course, the universities have to go internationally. And apply for the corresponding visas.
I wouldn't want to bust my ass for 40k a year as a senior programmer, working 60+ hours a week,
In the post to which you are replying, I said that it was tiring to hear programmers whining about their salaries. The sentence you quoted referred to college faculty. Yes, Americans by an large do not want to do that hard work, and the statistics demonstrate.
does that make me lazy or stupid or both?
Not at all. All it makes you a spoiled, egotistical whiner. Traditionally, we Americans asked first, how much am I worth? Can I be (become rich by making myself) useful?
Note that none of that even entered your thought.
The question is not what you want: the question is how much you are worth. They markets are telling you that you are not worth as much as used to be the case. But, being focused entirely on yourself, you simply don't get the main message.
Does it make any difference how much money a company earns or saves from a programmer's efforts or is it always about saving $20k annually per employee?
I don't even know that this means. Do you?
I've had the "privilege" of working with H1-B and offshore "programmers" and I can tell you they have been woefully under skilled and lack the independent drive of their US counterparts.
You still don't get it.
If you produce 10 gadgets per day and receive $100 in wages, and I produce 5 gadgets per day and receive $40 in wages, which one of us is better, more productive? Clearly, you are. Which one is worth his keep? I am, because I cost $8 per gadget and you cost $10, while those gadgets sell at the same price. What will make you as worthy as I, less skilled worker? A drop in your salary. No, not to $40 as many ignorami claim: only to $80. Then you, a more skilled worker, will be as worthy as I am.
You not only don't know the answers to questions --- you don't even approach them from the right direction. How can you decide where your rightful place in the workforce is when you don't even know how people that buy your services think?
And, why don't you know these basics? You don't have to answer me, ask yourself.
They lack imagination and have no commitment or loyalty to the contracting company.
How much loyalty do I need when I change oil in my car? Clearly, none at all.
Again, if you asked first what is NEEEDED by employers today, you'd get on the right track towards answers. But you think in terms of what they SHOULD need. Excuse me, but who the h-ll are you, a person without even basic knowledge of economics or business administration, to tell people that are experts in those areas what they should want? Who on earth are you to tell corporate CEOs and middle managers what their needs are?
Add to that the piss poor abilities of management to understand
You have not clue how stupid this remark sounds from a person that demonstrated complete ignorance in this area. You don't have to know, but you'd help yourself by refraining from such "wise" statements.
that how to manage remote groups or identify under skilled developers and the net productivity loss is astounding.
And, it was you, of all people, that assessed the losses and found them astounding?
When they move to the next contract you risk losing your intellectual capital to a competitor because they normally stay within the same business domain and can command a higher salary from knowledge gained at your expense.
And all those MBAs, all those consultants with Ph.D.s that they hire --- all these people do not know this?
Corporations are about to learn a powerful lesson, "you get what you pay for".
Thank G-d we have you to teach them that lesson.
Don't you see what's going on: being so full of confidence about YOUR abilities and about YOUR knowlege that you are willing to come to ridoculous concusions -- that corporate managers, with higher education, who are paid millions per year for thyeir knowledge and skills, do not know something obvious to you, a person whose only knowledge is VBA and Java syntax? Do you not see how ridiculous this is?
Your problem is clearly not the lack of intelligence but your values. Me-first ideiology is what leads you to these conclusions and, ultimately, unhapiness: you can't impove as long as you refuse to do so. And now, the expected punchline:
But what the hell, they are getting their bonuses now
And all those owners, corporate boeards, consulting companies, business professors are all so stupid that they are simply payng those bonuses for nothing.
DO you self a fovor: buy a book on economics and business administration. You aready know enough Java.
Answer the question. If U.S. programmers are doing nothing but screwing their employers by expecting the prevailing wage then how badly are you screwing your employer? I believe that the equation is taking what you're making and subtract from that what someone else is willing to do it for. That's how much you're ripping off your employer. Round figures will do.
I completely agree with the first part. Socialism has shown itself to be completely bad in the long run.
Nobody advocates unbridled capitalism nowadays. Economists know also about the limitations of markets: markets do not work well or not at all in provision of public goods, for instance; their efficiency is high in providing private goods. That is why we indeed need the government to ensure provision of defense, clear air, police, etc.
If you notice all the leading socialist proponents of this country are CAPITALISTS.
That is a very astute, but still over-reaching, observation. The number of people like Soros is still not large: they are only more heard due to the sympathy shown them by the media. Most of the capitalists in this country are workers. Great majority of people have 401K and keep their saving, including retirement savings, in stocks (that was not the case 100 years ago, of during hte Depression). That makes them capitalists.
Even if you think of "capitalists" as business owners, Soroses of this world are still at tiny minority. It is true that some wealthy people developed an unearned guilt for having riches, but they are small in number. It is ture that Owen was one of them.
Once again, to clarify: nobody advocates unbridled capitalism, as it does have its evils. I objected to the ease, however, with which you were advocating an alternative. This is not only intellectually unjustifiable but is particularly disturbing in the current environment, when one half of the country embraces socialism openly and whole-heartedly.
One time Whitaker Chambers was being entertained at Henry Luces home and Mrs Luce said the following...
" In the US, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are republicans. The upper classes are communists"
That has always stuck in my mind. I have always equated socialists, fascists, communists as being statists.
Some people get confused by party labels for the ruling class.
I did not say that the companies that do so act as conservatives; I don't know what in my words led you to this conclusion.
Companies' management merely act as such and utilize markets --- labor markets in this case. That is what owners of companies --- most of us, Americans --- have hired the managers to do. Labor markets are indeed unusual among the markets, and their functioning indeed requires balancing of social and private benefits. Problems quickly arise when social aspects are disregarded: consider for instance 2 million Turks that are now Germans that dislike Germany, who have been invited there as guest workers. We risk the same if we let 10M Mexicans into this country. These are difficult questions that must be addressed and, no, I am not advocating a completely free movement of labor. (I can justify it in purely economic terms: citizenship is far more than merely a participant in the economy).
But that is not what is discussed on this board, time and time again. Most of the time it is whining and bitching by programmers whose wages went down in the last few years. They were robbing us blind --- yes, us Americans, not foreigners: we had to pay extremely high wages to them due to shortage (in mid 1990s, an average electrical engineer with a Ph.D. and 20 years of experience was making $96,000/year, whereas a programmer that knew the latest version of Java or some other such invention could make $200,000 and routinely $100,000 even without a college degree). What happens in ONE sector of the labor market is easily corrected by markets. And I would expect that conservatives should understand that and look to MARKETS first.
Now, when was the last time you saw that happening? Very rarely, if at all. But thread after thread, post after posts, people on this conservative forum blame Bush for not "fixing" the economy, wages of IT workers, gas prices. Doing so is definitely at variance with conservative principles. Conservatives must stand on the side of markets in face of onslaught faced by them by socialist Europe and one half of this country. Instead, whether knowingly or not, many of them repeat the socialist mantra.
If you see a job posting that demands every skill set from IBM mainframe to Solaris, you know they really want an H1B.
And cite this in support of your statement:
During the colonial period there were many different monopolies granted by the crown.
Our first major roads were private turnpikes. Monopolies granted by the legislatures. Early railroads received free land, from the government, for a distance on either side of their trackage.
You appear to think that monopolies are part of socialism. They have nothing to do with that. Strictly speaking, socialism is government ownership of production capacity and other economics activity. Now, "ownership" may be exercised to various degree. In some cases, the government does not need to own factories or railroads (as in the Soviet Union): it can leave them in private hands but impose sever controls (as Nazis --- National Socialist Workers Party --- in Germany).
If you tell us that the markets are never entirely free, you are absolutely correct. Nor did I advocate that markets must be completely free (please read my previous post, if you care: I do not advocate at all and am very much against free movement of labor across the border).
Presidents have nothing to do with the economy???? You are obviously too young to remember the Jimmy Carter days.
So, what did Carter did or did not do that cause that misery?
You live in a nation, not a market.
The economy serves humans, not the other way around. There is no ethical or moral reason to accept the model of globalism we are being shown. It is a model that puts shareholder equity as the one and only consideration. You can whine "socialist" all you like. But you will be simply an update of 1935 Liberty League types.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.