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.
That is incorrect: they attempt to screw --- not only the the employer but the rest of us, too, for we pay the inflated salaries through higher prices --- by demanding a salary that is HIGHER than the prevailing wage.
LI believe that the equation is taking what you're making and subtract from that what someone else is willing to do it for.
Correct. In my case, the difference is zero. If it becomes positive, I'll be out of my job and someone else will be hired. Should this occur, the questions I'll ask, what have I failed to do to keep myself competitive? what should I do now to make myself competitive again?
That is not what most IT people do, and certainly not most posters on such thread. It's rather what employers --- always stupid, always selling out their companies and the country for bonuses, etc. --- and Bush personally have failed to do to protect those whiners, poor soles that cannot any longer make $150,000 while often not knowing how to read or communicate well.
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.
None of the posts on this thread, including yours, have shown any understanding of what that model is.
I certainly did not address that model either. You are arguing against a straw man. You are asking for defense of something I have not said.
LIt is a model that puts shareholder equity as the one and only consideration.
There you go: who on earth (but the socialists) have told you that nonsense?
have You can whine
Now, my friend you are being unjustifiably offensive: I did not complain about anything. True, I called others whiners, so you appear to use schoolyard tools of debate.
"socialist" all you like. But you will be simply an update of 1935 Liberty League types.
Silly. You know nothing about my position: except for #77, I provided counter-arguments against other posts. You simply have no data to put me in any particular category. Once again you are accusing me of something I never said. No comment is therefore necessary or possible.
You have defined the market as the focus of conservatism. It is not. Faith, family, and community are the focus of conservatism, not a Social Darwinist "devil take the hindmost" indifference to any consideration but shareholder equity.
How is it not?
It's sounds to me like the Congresscritters are throwing a few bones to the select few.
Just the opposite is true. When one segment of labor, such as IT, gets extra salary (larger than available elsewhere), that segment is subsidized by all Americans: (i) stock owners, which includes majority of the population, especially retirees, because the prices of stocks are lower due to lower profit; and (ii) consumers, who pay higher prices due to extra costs passed to them by employers.
What is so just or fair for one, small part of Americans to demand subsidy from the rest of us?
Here's a fer instance: Right now in Oregon, there are no unemployed cabinet makers or finishers. So to meet the demand one has to A. Raise their wage rates and "take" from another shop or B. Find a newbie and invest one's time in training them. C. Slip a politician a few bucks and get an 'import'?
If there are no unemployed cabinet makers, it means that the demand for them, not cabinets, is equal to or exceed supply. If it is equal, the markets have taken care of demand and supply. If the demand exceeds supply, the profits of cabinet makers will increase, which will (i) attract additional cabinet makers and (ii) imports. In either case, the market will take care of supply and demand.
Now, what the h-ll does this question have to do with anything written before on this thread?
Of course once the number of displaced American born workers reaches a critical mass, the question will be do you want a large increase of income taxes, a new set of payroll taxes, or both? There is no free lunch.
Due to the extreme cost of living in CA, $53K a year in CA translates into about $30K a year in the Chicago area and $20-25K a year in most of the rest of the country(except the East Coast).
It is ironic that fools(and that is the most generous word I can use for them) throw around words such as "freedom" to defend this nonsense, while not giving a care at the ultimate end result. The more and more displaced Americans workers, the greater the chance that the US will become fully socialist. To those who throw around words like "freedom", if these trends are not stopped, you have seen nothing yet when it comes to taxes.
You have defined the market as the focus of conservatism.
I have not. If something is unclear, ask for a clarification. You continue to put words in my mouth, which is becoming offensive.
It is not. Faith, family, and community are the focus of conservatism,
More declarations. Apparently, that is what attracts you personally to the conservative movement. You have a disagreement with "liberals" in what they do to faith, family, and community. And that, actually, was one of the points I made: when it comes to economics, most self-identified conservatives aspire to socialist ideals. And that is why we have a huge government even with "conservatives" in power, and that is why it is ever increasing.
If you read a little, you'll discover that most thinkers to whom modern conservative point as founding fathers stated in various ways that free markets underly democracy; no freedom is possible unless there is economic freedom. Your statemeny is therefore factually incorrect (it would be correct if it were preceded with "what conservatism to me is...").
not a Social Darwinist "devil take the hindmost" indifference to any consideration but shareholder equity.
I guess you find these words, "shareholders' equity." very intellectual. I have no idea what they do in your post or this discussion.
Let's talk more when you are willing to have a discussion. So far, it was not. As I said earlier, I am not going to reply to words put in my mouth.
Have a good day.
'Just the opposite is true. When one segment of labor, such as IT, gets extra salary (larger than available elsewhere), that segment is subsidized by all Americans: (i) stock owners, which includes majority of the population, especially retirees, because the prices of stocks are lower due to lower profit; and (ii) consumers, who pay higher prices due to extra costs passed to them by employers.'
By golly you're right. Just think of what the profits would be if we allowed slavery!
What critical mass? What exactly is the problem on the scale you allege?
Unemployment is so low that it was not even considered to be possible until a few years ago. What critical mass?
If that is what you "deduced" from my posts, I have no further comment.
Have a good day.
Why the free traders imply that Americans with capacity to get PhD in mathematics should so naive as to chose such "career"? It shows that either the free traders are either stupid themselves or are completely dishonest.
Poor guy! Must have been reduced to living off a trust fund. Now there is a job that could be outsourced, V.P.
This non tax payer came very close to being our first unelected president.
Throw in unions and trial lawyers. The illegal immigration, long existent but encouraged by the Clintons in 1996 to maximize voter fraud for reelection, and the H-1B visas are typical reactions to misguided liberal policies. (I say misguided but they may be on purpose.) The market will always work no matter the govenments efforts to thwart it even if it has to become a "black market".
There was a lot of ugly carp going on at that time. I heard an authoritative rumor that a public university in Virginia hired 60 part-time lecturers to staff the equivalent of 30 full-time positions -- and the 60 part-timers were foreign PhDs to a one. (This was entirely illegal, as I understand things.)
I was unlucky enough to be on the market at this time. Partly my fault: I didn't get tenure at a cow college down south. (But I didn't get tenure in part because they knew they could hire lots better than me at that time.) Fortunately, I managed to get a decent position at a compass-point school in the midwest, where I still am.
The market turned around nicely five years later. The high-tech economy boomed, employing 30% of new PhDs in math; and the long-promised wave of faculty retirements began.
Didn't Ford beat him to that? Although Ford was elected to Congress he was not elected Vice President, he was appointed.
Even at that, Rockefeller would have probably been better than Carter.
Also the ads demanding 10 years of Java experience AND 5 years of .NET experience.
It's not just that. I've left IT for a career change and am back in school. I'm in class with some great kids, all hard workers and good students. Many of the jobs they would be happy to take, and have traditionally been held by college students, have been snapped up by guess who?
The method of how unemployment and inflation is tabulated was changed in the Clinton admin, the real unemployment rate being closer to the U-6 numbers the BLS comes out with every month compared to the U-3 numbers. Also the offical number does not take into account underemployment. You have to go beyond the offical numbers and see what is the basis for them and the reality.
The reality is median wages have stagnated, things people need to survive, such as housing, medical, energy and food prices have gone up, hence why consumer confidence numbers have not gone up with the recent reprots on GDP. While the economy has been kept afloat by a record amount of govrenmnet spending and a real estate bubble that has allowed people to use their homes at ATMs, neither of these trends can last forever.
I am 100% convinced that if neither immigration and job outsourcing issues are adressed, the political landscape will change dramatically.
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.