U.S. to Sharply Cut Number of High-Tech Work Visas

Reuters ^ | September 22, 2003 | Alan Elsner

[Jamten]

Here in Silicon Valley it looks more like the American workers get axed and the foreigners stay. It is indeed racism or some kind of anti-americanism. So sad.

[AIC]

On this last post I agree 100%.

[null and void]

Yup. Thanks for chipping in. It's good the hear from the H1-B's view as well.

[risen_feenix]

Sure, just because I, as a business owner, want high end six figures a year does not mean I deserve it. Especially not if there are 20 million starving people and another company's CEO will do it for low end six figures a year. ~ end barf. Do you realize that, in accusing IT workers of making too much money, you have just joined the ranks of all the lefties who call for caps on CEO compensation? You deserve the compensation that the market will bear. What you don't deserve is to have your tax dollars used against you in the form of corporate welfare for your competitors. If Free Traders want an end to tarrifs, then they need to be willing to give up their cheap imported labor perks. The market meddling goes both ways.

That is some incoherent gibberish you've got there.

I didn't accuse anyone of making too much money. I'm accusing IT workers (the group to which I belong) of demanding more than the market is capable of paying. To get my current job 1 1/2 years ago, I took a pay cut because I saw the writing on the wall. I saw the decrease in demand, so I lowered my expectations. I had no trouble getting a job, because I did not expect my "brick and mortar" employer to pay the outlandish salaries I had been paid by the now bankrupt dot-coms. I'm not asking the government to interfere, that's what protectionist lefties (and apparently, righties) do.

My tax dollars are used against me in all sorts of ways, but not by "importing cheap labor". My tax dollars have nothing to do with it. If foreign students attend State Universities, they pay full price (i.e. out of state rates, which is "cost" for the uni). They are taking nothing from me.

In case you missed the past 40 years, we live in a globally-interconnected economy. At each point of increased globalization, the American economy has gotten stronger.

When the Japanese roared on the scene in the 70s, and the demise of the American automobile was heralded, what happened? A little consolidation, but the automobile industry in the US is thriving. The only country suffering right now are the Japanese, really.

When the "Asian Tigers" roared in the 80s, and hi-tech manufacturing was sent east, doom and gloom was predicted for the US. Are we worse off now? No, we are better off, and those Asian economies are much better off as well. We both won.

As India has gotten stronger in the 90s, with their vast swathes of "cheap IT labor", have we been hurt? In fact, no. We are coming out of a recession (caused by the irrational exuberance of the late 90s and the war on terror, not "cheap labor"). Cheap IT labor will mean cheaper IT products, and a greater variety of them.

Throughout history, national economies have become more and more interdependant, and the US has thrived through each revolution. Why? Because we have stayed away from knee-jerk anti-competitive behavior and have had the captial available to facilitate and lead these revolutions. Unfortunately, we seem to be going the way of the protectionist Europeans and may lose out on this next revolution.

The days of software development as cash cow are ending. Take it from someone in the industry, while there may be some specialty software development in the works, and the occasional niche market may develop, enterprise-wide solutions have been done to death. Industry consolidation is taking place, and margins are going bye-bye. We can't stop those days from coming. There will be another boom, which appears to be somewhere in the health care field, with bio-engineering, genetics, what have you. American companies and investors need to have the capital available to make strategic investments in he next wave of technology that is to emerge. That capital stays available if American companies keep their costs low, either through exporting work or importing "cheap labor".

We cannot win by protecting jobs that were successful in the past. America will only thrive by finding the successful industries of the future. If you neo-Luddites would take time away from smashing your printing presses and insted read a book on economics, you'd understand things a bit better.

[RogueIsland]

America will only thrive by finding the successful industries of the future.

And what, offshore those as well>

If you neo-Luddites would take time away from smashing your printing presses and insted read a book on economics, you'd understand things a bit better.

Ah yes, the typical elitist condescension of the annointed spokesmen of the Free Trade religion. If you'd but read the Holy Text, you'd understand things a bit better, you silly rube who doesn't understand your unemployed place in the new Randian Utopia.

[risen_feenix]

I must admit, I'm having trouble understaning what you're trying to say. We've wandered far from the original point. You are against importing "cheap labor". You also feel that the outsourcing of IT projects will become cost prohibitive once the inevitible devaluation of the dollar occurs.

I disagree. I do not believe the Fed would ever allow such a devaluation to occur. You think devaluation, were it to occur, would have a minimal effect on inflation (although, even your random 10% number would be devastating to the economy). I disagree. The point is, we're dealing in "what ifs".

The only difference is, if we look back at history, when the goverment has pursued your suggested paths (usually under leftist administrations), economic disaster has ensued, setting the nation back years economically with each attempt.

Should the Fed suddenly decide to start printing buckets of money and we come out swimmingly, you can call me a fool. Until then, I'll follow the opinion of my economic betters and expect our country to follow the path to stability, which does not include intentional devaluation of the dollar.

[risen_feenix]

We live in a global economy, like it or not. The US has benefited, is benefitting, and will always benefit from increased globalization. It always has and it always will. There may be individual losers in America, but the nation as a whole benefits.

Not being able to see the forest for the trees are trademarks of the Democrats.

Again, I reiterate that you read up on economics and how it works. It's not that only the strong survive in the free market. It's that the inflexible fail, and beg the government to save them.

I've been quite amazed at the closed mindedness of you so called "conservatives". I don't know what you are, but you sure aren't conservative by any modern measure.

[Southack]

"You are against importing "cheap labor"."

I've said nothing of the sort. Pay attention.

[Southack]

"You also feel that the outsourcing of IT projects will become cost prohibitive once the inevitible devaluation of the dollar occurs. I disagree. I do not believe the Fed would ever allow such a devaluation to occur."

For one thing, the Fed isn't the only player in this game. Even if the Federal Reserve actively spent all of its treasure buying up surplus Dollars on the foreign exchanges, it would be hard-pressed to make up for our current trade and budget deficits (both of which pump Trillions of surplus Dollars into the world market over time).

For another thing, you are ignoring basic economics. If the Dollar buys fewer Rupees, then yes, absolutely, it costs more Dollars to pay for projects outsourced to India. You can claim to "disagree" with that fact all day long, but such "disagreement" won't change the reality on the ground.

In addition, you are **assuming** that the current elevated level of the U.S. Dollar is its fair value (i.e. the Fed wouldn't want to change it). That's a wrong-headed assumption.

In a free and fair market, the Dollar would decline in each year wherein we had an import surplus. Likewise, the Dollar would normally decline in each year when we had a federal budget deficit (because that borrowed money has to come from somewhere, and the additional Dollars that get pumped into the market alter the Supply side of the Supply versus Demand equation for price/value).

But that's not happening. Rather than let the Dollar adjust downward (which would devastate their export-based economies), foreign central banks are buying up all of the surplus Dollars on the market...and then they are hoarding those Dollars so that they remain out of circulation (thus altering the "Supply" aspect of the supply v demand equation). This props up the value of the Dollar, making imports into America vastly cheaper than they would be in a free and fair market (i.e. one without massive government direct intervention in the currency market).